Devins v. Hernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Devins v. Hernandez

82 A.D.3d 558, 918 N.Y.2d 481

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 558 (Devins v. Hernandez) 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

Devins v. Hernandez, 82 A.D.3d 558, 918 N.Y.2d 481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

NYCHA’s findings that petitioner improperly used her position and the agency’s equipment to access information or to persuade others to disclose information regarding the confidential relocation of her former cotenant who had been designated [559]*559a “Victim of Domestic Violence” (VDV), and unlawfully held herself out as a Law Department employee purporting to communicate Law Department orders and directives to others in the agency, is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]). The record indicates that petitioner’s former cotenant was properly designated a VDV under NYCHA’s procedures. In any event, regardless of the propriety of the VDV designation, there was substantial evidence of petitioner’s unlawful and unauthorized conduct, including authenticated e-mails, facsimiles, telephone logs, and the testimony of numerous witnesses.

The disciplinary penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550 [2000]; see also Matter of Bruce v New York City Hous. Auth., 78 AD3d 414 [2010]).

We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

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

NYCHA’s findings that petitioner improperly used her position and the agency’s equipment to access information or to persuade others to disclose information regarding the confidential relocation of her former cotenant who had been designated [559]*559a “Victim of Domestic Violence” (VDV), and unlawfully held herself out as a Law Department employee purporting to communicate Law Department orders and directives to others in the agency, is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]). The record indicates that petitioner’s former cotenant was properly designated a VDV under NYCHA’s procedures. In any event, regardless of the propriety of the VDV designation, there was substantial evidence of petitioner’s unlawful and unauthorized conduct, including authenticated e-mails, facsimiles, telephone logs, and the testimony of numerous witnesses.

The disciplinary penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550 [2000]; see also Matter of Bruce v New York City Hous. Auth., 78 AD3d 414 [2010]).

We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 558, 918 N.Y.2d 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devins-v-hernandez-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack