CASTIGLIA, NICHOLAS v. COUNTY OF ONTARIO

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 10, 2016·No. TP 15-01708·Published

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

473 TP 15-01708 PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF NICHOLAS CASTIGLIA, PETITIONER,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COUNTY OF ONTARIO AND PHILLIP POVERO, SHERIFF OF ONTARIO COUNTY, RESPONDENTS.

TREVETT CRISTO SALZER & ANDOLINA, P.C., ROCHESTER (MATTHEW J. FUSCO OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

GARY L. CURTISS, COUNTY ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (LEA T. NACCA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County [Thomas A. Stander, J.], entered October 2, 2015) to annul a determination of respondents. The determination terminated the employment of petitioner.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to annul the determination finding him guilty of disciplinary charges and terminating his employment as a correction officer for respondents. We conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence, i.e., “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180; see CPLR 7803 [4]; see generally Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 230-231). We further conclude that, in view of petitioner’s extensive disciplinary record, the penalty of terminating his employment is not “so disproportionate to the offense[s] as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness,” and thus it does not constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38, rearg denied 96 NY2d 854; see Matter of Seltzer v City of Rochester, 77 AD3d 1300, 1301).

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

CASTIGLIA, NICHOLAS v. COUNTY OF ONTARIO, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

CASTIGLIA, NICHOLAS v. COUNTY OF ONTARIO (CASTIGLIA, NICHOLAS v. COUNTY OF ONTARIO) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kelly v. Safir
747 N.E.2d 1280 (New York Court of Appeals, 2001)
300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v. State Division of Human Rights
379 N.E.2d 1183 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Seltzer v. City of Rochester
77 A.D.3d 1300 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)