Gillen v. Smithtown Library Board of Trustees

254 A.D.2d 486, 679 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11293
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 26, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 486 (Gillen v. Smithtown Library Board of Trustees) 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
Gillen v. Smithtown Library Board of Trustees, 254 A.D.2d 486, 679 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Smithtown Library Board of Trustees, dated January 21, 1997, which terminated the petitioner from his position as Director of the Smithtown Library, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered September 30, 1997, which confirmed the determination and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that in a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the determination of an administrative board, a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board or body it reviews unless the decision under review is arbitrary and capricious or constitutes an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231).

The determination of the respondent Smithtown Library Board of Trustees was based on several instances of misconduct by the petitioner in illegally promoting employees in contravention of the Civil Service Laws. Thus, the penalty of termination, when considered in light of all of the circumstances of this case, was not so dispproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra, at 234; Matter of Soss v Grant, 227 AD2d 494). Further, in this regard, a high degree of deference is to be accorded to an agency’s determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed (see, Matter of Washington v Dolce, 208 AD2d 937).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Muraik v. Landi
19 A.D.3d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Salino v. Cimino
298 A.D.2d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Knight v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services
275 A.D.2d 1038 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Gillen v. Smithtown Library Board of Trustees
721 N.E.2d 945 (New York Court of Appeals, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 A.D.2d 486, 679 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gillen-v-smithtown-library-board-of-trustees-nyappdiv-1998.