Boffa v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boffa v. New York City Housing Authority

51 A.D.2d 722, 379 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11194

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 722 (Boffa v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Boffa v. New York City Housing Authority, 51 A.D.2d 722, 379 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent, dated April 2, 1975 and made after a hearing, which found petitioner guilty of incompetence and misconduct and dismissed him from his position as a housing assistant. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. There was substantial evidence in the record on this proceeding to support respondent’s findings and conclusions. In the light of petitioner’s entire employment history, the penalty imposed was not an abuse of discretion (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, 34 NY2d 222, 240). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Margett, Damiani and Rabin, 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 respondent, dated April 2, 1975 and made after a hearing, which found petitioner guilty of incompetence and misconduct and dismissed him from his position as a housing assistant. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. There was substantial evidence in the record on this proceeding to support respondent’s findings and conclusions. In the light of petitioner’s entire employment history, the penalty imposed was not an abuse of discretion (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, 34 NY2d 222, 240). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 722, 379 N.Y.S.2d 150, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boffa-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1976.