Gaudioso v. Schembri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gaudioso v. Schembri

221 A.D.2d 165, 633 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10744

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 165 (Gaudioso v. Schembri) 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

Gaudioso v. Schembri, 221 A.D.2d 165, 633 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent Department of Correction dated March 2, 1994, which terminated petitioner from his employment, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Stanley Sklar, J.], entered July 18, 1994) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including the testimony of two chemists confirming the presence of marijuana in petitioner’s urine, supports respondent’s determination that, in violation of departmental rules, petitioner used marijuana. We note that the Administrative Law Judge was in the best position to ascertain the credibility of petitioner’s testimony that he had unknowingly ingested marijuana by eating a piece of cake containing the substance (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). Finally, respondent’s termination of petitioner does not shock the conscience given the nature of his work (see, Matter of Seelig v Koehler, 76 NY2d 87, 93-94, [166]*166cert denied 498 US 847). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent Department of Correction dated March 2, 1994, which terminated petitioner from his employment, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Stanley Sklar, J.], entered July 18, 1994) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including the testimony of two chemists confirming the presence of marijuana in petitioner’s urine, supports respondent’s determination that, in violation of departmental rules, petitioner used marijuana. We note that the Administrative Law Judge was in the best position to ascertain the credibility of petitioner’s testimony that he had unknowingly ingested marijuana by eating a piece of cake containing the substance (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). Finally, respondent’s termination of petitioner does not shock the conscience given the nature of his work (see, Matter of Seelig v Koehler, 76 NY2d 87, 93-94, [166]*166cert denied 498 US 847). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 165, 633 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaudioso-v-schembri-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack