Gray v. Novick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gray v. Novick

269 A.D.2d 746, 703 N.Y.S.2d 415, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1614

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 16, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and amended petition dismissed. Memorandum: Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see generally, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182). The record provides no support for petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the outcome flowed from that alleged bias (see, Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 74 NY2d 833, 834, mot to amend remittitur granted 74 NY2d 942; Matter of Schindlar v Incorporated Vil. of Lloyd Harbor, 261 AD2d 626). Finally, the penalty of dismissal is not “ ‘so disproportionate to the offense [s], in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ ” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233, quoting Matter of Stolz v Board of Regents, 4 AD2d 361, 364). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.) Present— Green, A. P. J., Hayes, Wisner and Balio, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and amended petition dismissed. Memorandum: Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see generally, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182). The record provides no support for petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the outcome flowed from that alleged bias (see, Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 74 NY2d 833, 834, mot to amend remittitur granted 74 NY2d 942; Matter of Schindlar v Incorporated Vil. of Lloyd Harbor, 261 AD2d 626). Finally, the penalty of dismissal is not “ ‘so disproportionate to the offense [s], in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ ” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233, quoting Matter of Stolz v Board of Regents, 4 AD2d 361, 364). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.) Present— Green, A. P. J., Hayes, Wisner and Balio, JJ.

Gray v. Novick, 269 A.D.2d 746, 703 N.Y.S.2d 415, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

269 A.D.2d 746 (Gray v. Novick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related