Burke v. Tappan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burke v. Tappan

213 A.D.2d 1079, 625 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3969

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1079 (Burke v. Tappan) 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

Burke v. Tappan, 213 A.D.2d 1079, 625 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination sustaining six charges of sexual harassment against petitioner. The penalty of demotion to the position of Correction Officer is not so disproportionate to the charged conduct as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Further, respondent did not abuse her discretion in imposing a penalty more severe than the Hearing Officer’s recommendation (see, Matter of Comeau v Board of Educ., 160 AD2d 1150, 1152; Matter of Crookston v Brown, 140 AD2d 868, 869). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J.) Present—Green, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination sustaining six charges of sexual harassment against petitioner. The penalty of demotion to the position of Correction Officer is not so disproportionate to the charged conduct as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Further, respondent did not abuse her discretion in imposing a penalty more severe than the Hearing Officer’s recommendation (see, Matter of Comeau v Board of Educ., 160 AD2d 1150, 1152; Matter of Crookston v Brown, 140 AD2d 868, 869). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J.) Present—Green, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1079, 625 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-tappan-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack