De Martino v. Kiley

117 A.D.2d 702, 498 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52982
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 18, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 702 (De Martino v. Kiley) 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
De Martino v. Kiley, 117 A.D.2d 702, 498 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondents, dated January 23, 1984, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from his position as a police officer with the New York City Transit Authority.

Petition granted to the extent of vacating the penalty imposed, on the law, with costs, and matter remitted to the respondent New York City Transit Authority for reconsideration of the issue of an appropriate penalty in accordance herewith.

Substantial evidence exists in the record to support respon[703]*703dents’ determination sustaining the charges against the petitioner (see, Matter of De Bois v Rozzi, 114 AD2d 848). However, in determining an appropriate sanction, the hearing officer consulted petitioner’s departmental file with respect to his prior disciplinary record. Petitioner’s employment record was not introduced into evidence at the hearing nor was petitioner notified that his employment record would be considered by the hearing officer in determining an appropriate penalty.

Under a similar set of circumstances, the Court of Appeals held that the petitioner was entitled to prior notice of adverse material contained in his personnel file and to an opportunity to rebut such evidence prior to the determination of a penalty (Matter of Bigelow v Board of Trustees, 63 NY2d 470). In view of the hearing officer’s failure to notify the petitioner that his employment record would be considered in arriving at a determination of a penalty and to afford petitioner an opportunity to challenge the record and submit mitigating data with regard to information contained therein, a remittal of the matter is required. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Related

De Martino v. Meehan
149 A.D.2d 703 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Ferguson v. Meehan
141 A.D.2d 604 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Morrone v. Litke
119 A.D.2d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 A.D.2d 702, 498 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-martino-v-kiley-nyappdiv-1986.