Antignano v. Gunn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Antignano v. Gunn

134 A.D.2d 344, 520 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50521

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 344 (Antignano v. Gunn) 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

Antignano v. Gunn, 134 A.D.2d 344, 520 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York City Transit Authority, dated October 16, 1985, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had filed fraudulent claims for overtime and meal allowances and imposed a penalty of dismissal.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

We find that the Hearing Officer heard substantial evidence from which he could conclude that the petitioner had filed [345]*345fraudulent claims (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181). Further, the penalty imposed is not excessive in light of the petitioner’s supervisory position, his careful and thorough plan to defraud, and the respondents’ need to deter similar false claims (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 238-239).

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York City Transit Authority, dated October 16, 1985, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner had filed fraudulent claims for overtime and meal allowances and imposed a penalty of dismissal.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

We find that the Hearing Officer heard substantial evidence from which he could conclude that the petitioner had filed [345]*345fraudulent claims (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181). Further, the penalty imposed is not excessive in light of the petitioner’s supervisory position, his careful and thorough plan to defraud, and the respondents’ need to deter similar false claims (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 238-239).

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 344, 520 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antignano-v-gunn-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack