Goodman v. Westchester County Health Care Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goodman v. Westchester County Health Care Corp.

281 A.D.2d 547, 721 N.Y.S.2d 819, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2607

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 19, 2001·Published

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Edward Stolzenburg, as president and chief executive officer of Westchester County Health Care Corporation, dated March 31, 1999, which adopted the findings and recommendation of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct, and terminated his employment.

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, there was substantial evidence to support the respondents’ determination (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 140; Matter of Moorehead v New York City Tr. Auth., 190 AD2d 674).

Further, the penalty imposed does not shock the judicial conscience (see, CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Paterno, Inc. v Curiale, 88 NY2d 328, 336; Matter of Donati v Shaffer, 83 NY2d 828, 830; Matter of Fox v Finnerty, 62 NY2d 796; Matter of Moorehead v New York City Tr. Auth., supra).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Edward Stolzenburg, as president and chief executive officer of Westchester County Health Care Corporation, dated March 31, 1999, which adopted the findings and recommendation of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct, and terminated his employment.

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, there was substantial evidence to support the respondents’ determination (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 140; Matter of Moorehead v New York City Tr. Auth., 190 AD2d 674).

Further, the penalty imposed does not shock the judicial conscience (see, CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Paterno, Inc. v Curiale, 88 NY2d 328, 336; Matter of Donati v Shaffer, 83 NY2d 828, 830; Matter of Fox v Finnerty, 62 NY2d 796; Matter of Moorehead v New York City Tr. Auth., supra).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Goodman v. Westchester County Health Care Corp., 281 A.D.2d 547, 721 N.Y.S.2d 819, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

281 A.D.2d 547 (Goodman v. Westchester County Health Care Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related