Doino v. Laehy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Doino v. Laehy

100 A.D.2d 744, 473 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17753

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 6, 1984·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, determination confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Judicial review of a penalty imposed by an administrative agency is limited to determining whether the punishment is “ ‘ “so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness”.’ [citations omitted]” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). In view of the serious nature of petitioner’s misconduct, the penalty of dismissal cannot be said to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J. — art 78.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, determination confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Judicial review of a penalty imposed by an administrative agency is limited to determining whether the punishment is “ ‘ “so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness”.’ [citations omitted]” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). In view of the serious nature of petitioner’s misconduct, the penalty of dismissal cannot be said to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J. — art 78.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Doino v. Laehy, 100 A.D.2d 744, 473 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

100 A.D.2d 744 (Doino v. Laehy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related