Aikins v. Curtis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aikins v. Curtis

81 A.D.2d 1020, 440 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11776

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 27, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 A.D.2d 1020 (Aikins v. Curtis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aikins v. Curtis, 81 A.D.2d 1020, 440 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— Petition unanimously granted and determination annulled, without costs, and matter remitted for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioners instituted this article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a determination of respondent commissioner dismissing them for misconduct as nurses at the Steuben County infirmary. The determination must be annulled, Charges Nos. 5 and 6 against petitioner Aikins dismissed as duplicative, Charges Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 against petitioner McCann dismissed for failure of proof and the remaining charges remitted for further review and findings of fact. It appears from the hearing officer’s report, which respondent accepted, that in judging the matter the hearing officer applied an improper standard for finding guilt. Thus, although finding the record lacked “positive proof’ of some of the charges, he found “substantial evidence” to support petitioners’ misconduct. Substantial evidence is a standard of judicial review, however, which binds the courts when they examine quasi-judicial determinations of an administrative agency. The administrative finder of fact is obliged to “consider and sift all the evidence — accepting the true and rejecting the false” (Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 NY 256, 274) (emphasis added). Since the hearing officer’s report does not contain any specific findings of fact but only conclusory statements of guilt, we can only assume from this somewhat ambiguous statement on the quality of the evidence that an erroneous standard of proof was employed in making his findings. Whether respondent’s determination of misconduct on the remaining charges is supported by substantial evidence will have to await the hearing officer’s detailed findings of fact and respondent’s decision thereon, and we therefore remit the matter for that purpose. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Monroe Supreme Court.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Doerr and Moule, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Petition unanimously granted and determination annulled, without costs, and matter remitted for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioners instituted this article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a determination of respondent commissioner dismissing them for misconduct as nurses at the Steuben County infirmary. The determination must be annulled, Charges Nos. 5 and 6 against petitioner Aikins dismissed as duplicative, Charges Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 against petitioner McCann dismissed for failure of proof and the remaining charges remitted for further review and findings of fact. It appears from the hearing officer’s report, which respondent accepted, that in judging the matter the hearing officer applied an improper standard for finding guilt. Thus, although finding the record lacked “positive proof’ of some of the charges, he found “substantial evidence” to support petitioners’ misconduct. Substantial evidence is a standard of judicial review, however, which binds the courts when they examine quasi-judicial determinations of an administrative agency. The administrative finder of fact is obliged to “consider and sift all the evidence — accepting the true and rejecting the false” (Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 NY 256, 274) (emphasis added). Since the hearing officer’s report does not contain any specific findings of fact but only conclusory statements of guilt, we can only assume from this somewhat ambiguous statement on the quality of the evidence that an erroneous standard of proof was employed in making his findings. Whether respondent’s determination of misconduct on the remaining charges is supported by substantial evidence will have to await the hearing officer’s detailed findings of fact and respondent’s decision thereon, and we therefore remit the matter for that purpose. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Monroe Supreme Court.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Doerr and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 1020, 440 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aikins-v-curtis-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack