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

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

DecidedMay 25, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.3d 1172 (Browne v. City of New York) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 1172, 900 N.Y.S.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/browne-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack