Clayton v. Clement

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clayton v. Clement

40 A.D.2d 827, 337 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3471

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 827 (Clayton v. Clement) 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

Clayton v. Clement, 40 A.D.2d 827, 337 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul respondents’ determination, made September 24, 1970, after a hearing, which dismissed petitioner from his position as teacher in Central School District No. 5 of the Town of Smithtown. Determination modified, on the law, by reducing the penalty from one of dismissal to a suspension for the period commencing September 24, 1970 and ending on the date of the order to be entered hereon. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. Under all the circumstances, we find that the penalty of dismissal imposed by respondents was excessive and an abuse of discretion. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul respondents’ determination, made September 24, 1970, after a hearing, which dismissed petitioner from his position as teacher in Central School District No. 5 of the Town of Smithtown. Determination modified, on the law, by reducing the penalty from one of dismissal to a suspension for the period commencing September 24, 1970 and ending on the date of the order to be entered hereon. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. Under all the circumstances, we find that the penalty of dismissal imposed by respondents was excessive and an abuse of discretion. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Shapiro, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 827, 337 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayton-v-clement-nyappdiv-1972.