Garayua v. Board of Education of Yonkers City School District

248 A.D.2d 714, 671 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 30, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 714 (Garayua v. Board of Education of Yonkers City 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
Garayua v. Board of Education of Yonkers City School District, 248 A.D.2d 714, 671 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Education of the Yonkers City School District, dated September 18, 1996, which upon confirming a report of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and incompetence due to her excessive absenteeism, and dismissed her from her position as an assistant custodian.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Inasmuch as the petitioner was charged, inter alia, with misconduct and incompetence due to excessive absenteeism, Civil Service Law § 75 provided the appropriate statutory vehicle for the resolution of the instant controversy (see, Matter of Alston v Morgan, 245 AD2d 287; Matter of Abdalla v Fulton County, 208 AD2d 1168). While the petitioner contends that her case should have been governed by the provisions of Civil Service Law §§72 and 73 because her absenteeism was due to her physical incapacity, even charges of nonwillful absenteeism may be adjudicated in a proceeding pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 (see, Matter of Romano v Town Bd., 200 AD2d 934; see also, Matter of Moorehead v New York City Tr. Auth., 190 AD2d 674). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the finding of misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of James v Carter, 209 AD2d 522).

The pénalty of dismissal is not so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Alston v Morgan, supra; Matter of James v Carter, supra; Matter of Moorehead v New York City Tr. Auth., supra).

Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Wysocki v. Town of Southold
204 A.D.3d 811 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Hunstein v. Town of Southold
204 A.D.3d 797 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Tevlin v. Board of Educ. of Great Neck Union Free Sch. Dist.
2021 NY Slip Op 01054 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Overton v. Board of Education of Yonkers City School District
72 A.D.3d 1094 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Considine v. Pirro
38 A.D.3d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Pellegrino v. County of Orange
313 F. Supp. 2d 303 (S.D. New York, 2004)
Truss v. Westchester County Health Care Corp.
301 A.D.2d 607 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
in re Kampel v. Westchester County Health Care Corp.
286 A.D.2d 390 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
McKinnon v. Board of Education of North Bellmore Union Free School District
273 A.D.2d 240 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Cicero v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority
264 A.D.2d 334 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 A.D.2d 714, 671 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garayua-v-board-of-education-of-yonkers-city-school-district-nyappdiv-1998.