Browne v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Browne v. City of New York

73 A.D.3d 1172, 900 N.Y.S.2d 898

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 25, 2010·Published

Opinion

ing pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Diane D’Alessandro, Executive Director of New York City Employees’ Retirement System, which adopted the report and recommendation of an administrative law judge dated August 26, 2008, made after a name-clearing hearing, finding that the petitioner failed to negate the stated reasons for her demotion from her position as Director of Administrative Services.

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

The purpose of a name-clearing hearing is to provide a stigmatized employee with an opportunity to clear his or her name (see Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 763 [1999]). The employee bears the burden of proof to refute the charges and clear his or her name (see Marzullo v Suffolk County, 97 AD2d 789 [1983]). Here, the petitioner failed to negate the stated reasons for her demotion.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, there was substantial evidence to support the determination of the administrative law judge. Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

ing pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Diane D’Alessandro, Executive Director of New York City Employees’ Retirement System, which adopted the report and recommendation of an administrative law judge dated August 26, 2008, made after a name-clearing hearing, finding that the petitioner failed to negate the stated reasons for her demotion from her position as Director of Administrative Services.

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

The purpose of a name-clearing hearing is to provide a stigmatized employee with an opportunity to clear his or her name (see Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 763 [1999]). The employee bears the burden of proof to refute the charges and clear his or her name (see Marzullo v Suffolk County, 97 AD2d 789 [1983]). Here, the petitioner failed to negate the stated reasons for her demotion.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, there was substantial evidence to support the determination of the administrative law judge. Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

Browne v. City of New York, 73 A.D.3d 1172, 900 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

73 A.D.3d 1172 (Browne v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related