Bermel v. Walcott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bermel v. Walcott

112 A.D.3d 619, 975 N.Y.S.2d 905

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 112 A.D.3d 619 (Bermel v. Walcott) 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

Bermel v. Walcott, 112 A.D.3d 619, 975 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

[620]*620Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education dated June 14, 2011, which adopted the findings and recommendation of a hearing officer, made after a hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of certain charges of misconduct, and terminated the petitioner’s employment.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education that the petitioner was guilty of certain charges of misconduct was supported by substantial evidence in the record (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179 [1978]). Moreover, the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate to the offenses committed by the petitioner as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]; see also Matter of Winters v Board of Educ. of Lakeland Cent. School Dist., 99 NY2d 549, 550 [2002]; Matter of Barhite v Village of Medina, 23 AD3d 1114, 1115 [2005]; Matter of Rogers v Sherburne-Earlville Cent. School Dist., 17 AD3d 823, 825 [2005]; Matter of Foster v Saratoga Springs City School Dist., 16 AD3d 824, 826 [2005]). Dillon, J.E, Angiolillo, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

[620]*620Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education dated June 14, 2011, which adopted the findings and recommendation of a hearing officer, made after a hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of certain charges of misconduct, and terminated the petitioner’s employment.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education that the petitioner was guilty of certain charges of misconduct was supported by substantial evidence in the record (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179 [1978]). Moreover, the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate to the offenses committed by the petitioner as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]; see also Matter of Winters v Board of Educ. of Lakeland Cent. School Dist., 99 NY2d 549, 550 [2002]; Matter of Barhite v Village of Medina, 23 AD3d 1114, 1115 [2005]; Matter of Rogers v Sherburne-Earlville Cent. School Dist., 17 AD3d 823, 825 [2005]; Matter of Foster v Saratoga Springs City School Dist., 16 AD3d 824, 826 [2005]). Dillon, J.E, Angiolillo, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.3d 619, 975 N.Y.S.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bermel-v-walcott-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack