Drury v. Village of North Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Drury v. Village of North Syracuse

77 A.D.3d 1394, 907 N.Y.S.2d 922

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 1394 (Drury v. Village of North Syracuse) 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

Drury v. Village of North Syracuse, 77 A.D.3d 1394, 907 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County [Brian F. DeJoseph, J.], entered February 17, 2010) to review a determination of respondents. The determination terminated petitioner’s employment.

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination terminating his employment as Code Enforcement Officer and Fire Marshal of respondent Village of North Syracuse following a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75. We conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence, i.e., “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]; see CPLR 7803 [4]; see generally Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 230-231 [1974]). We further conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the penalty of termination of employment does not constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law because it is not “ ‘so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ ” (Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001], rearg denied 96 NY2d 854 [2001]; see Matter of Smeraldo v Rater, 55 AD3d 1298, 1299 [2008]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Sconiers and Pine, JJ.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County [Brian F. DeJoseph, J.], entered February 17, 2010) to review a determination of respondents. The determination terminated petitioner’s employment.

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination terminating his employment as Code Enforcement Officer and Fire Marshal of respondent Village of North Syracuse following a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75. We conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence, i.e., “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]; see CPLR 7803 [4]; see generally Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 230-231 [1974]). We further conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the penalty of termination of employment does not constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law because it is not “ ‘so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ ” (Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001], rearg denied 96 NY2d 854 [2001]; see Matter of Smeraldo v Rater, 55 AD3d 1298, 1299 [2008]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Sconiers and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 1394, 907 N.Y.S.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drury-v-village-of-north-syracuse-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack