D'Aurizio v. Greece Central School District

229 A.D.2d 987, 645 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9036
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 12, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 229 A.D.2d 987 (D'Aurizio v. Greece Central School District) 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
D'Aurizio v. Greece Central School District, 229 A.D.2d 987, 645 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinions

—Determination confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: From our review of the record, we conclude that the determination that petitioner, a school bus driver employed by respondent, was guilty of two charges of misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see generally, Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269, 270). We further conclude that petitioner’s argument that the Hearing Officer’s appointment violated Civil Service Law § 75 (2) "does not provide a basis for relief because it was not raised or relied upon at the agency level” (Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 74 NY2d 833, 834, mot to amend remittitur granted 74 NY2d 942). Petitioner failed to preserve for our review her contention that the Hearing Officer improperly admitted testimony regarding a May 4, 1994 conversation that she had with another employee of respondent. Were we to reach that issue, we would conclude that, even if that testimony was improperly admitted, "there was other evidence to more than substantiate the specific incidents of misconduct for which [petitioner] was terminated” (Matter of Sines v Opportunities for Broome, 156 AD2d 878, 880). Lastly, we cannot say on this record that the penalty of dismissal is " 'so disproportionate to the offense * * * as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ ” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233, quoting Matter of Stolz v Board of Regents, 4 AD2d 361, 364; see, Long v Board of Educ., 162 AD2d 1050).

All concur except Balio, J., who dissents in part and votes to modify in the following Memorandum.

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

Related

Parla v. Jamestown Board of Public Utilities
17 A.D.3d 1151 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Bottari v. Saratoga Springs City School District
3 A.D.3d 832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Catalano v. Village of Kenmore
255 A.D.2d 948 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Smith v. Board of Education of Taconic Hills Central School District
235 A.D.2d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
229 A.D.2d 987, 645 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daurizio-v-greece-central-school-district-nyappdiv-1996.