Guerasio v. New York State Unified Court System

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guerasio v. New York State Unified Court System

111 A.D.3d 456, 974 N.Y.S.2d 424

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.3d 456 (Guerasio v. New York State Unified Court System) 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

Guerasio v. New York State Unified Court System, 111 A.D.3d 456, 974 N.Y.S.2d 424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated March 6, 2012, which, inter alia, concurred in the Hearing Officer’s findings that petitioner engaged in misconduct by failing to report for his scheduled work assignment on 197 days between December 7, 2009, and February 14, 2011, and in the Hearing Officer’s recommendation that petitioner be terminated from his position as a Senior Court Officer, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, NY County [Cynthia S. Kern, J.], entered September 14, 2012), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner engaged in misconduct by missing 197 days of work between December 7, 2009, and February 28, 2011, and that petitioner’s absences were not caused by his psychological disorders (see Matter of Association of Surrogates & Supreme Ct. Reporters Within City of N.Y. v State of N.Y. Unified Ct. Sys., 48 AD3d 228 [1st Dept 2008]; Matter of Garayua v Board of Educ. of Yonkers City School Dist., 248 AD2d 714 [2d Dept 1998]).

The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness (see e.g. Matter of Dickinson v New York State Unified Ct. Sys., 99 AD3d 569 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Truss v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 301 AD2d 607 [2d Dept 2003]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, dated March 6, 2012, which, inter alia, concurred in the Hearing Officer’s findings that petitioner engaged in misconduct by failing to report for his scheduled work assignment on 197 days between December 7, 2009, and February 14, 2011, and in the Hearing Officer’s recommendation that petitioner be terminated from his position as a Senior Court Officer, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, NY County [Cynthia S. Kern, J.], entered September 14, 2012), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner engaged in misconduct by missing 197 days of work between December 7, 2009, and February 28, 2011, and that petitioner’s absences were not caused by his psychological disorders (see Matter of Association of Surrogates & Supreme Ct. Reporters Within City of N.Y. v State of N.Y. Unified Ct. Sys., 48 AD3d 228 [1st Dept 2008]; Matter of Garayua v Board of Educ. of Yonkers City School Dist., 248 AD2d 714 [2d Dept 1998]).

The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness (see e.g. Matter of Dickinson v New York State Unified Ct. Sys., 99 AD3d 569 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Truss v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 301 AD2d 607 [2d Dept 2003]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.3d 456, 974 N.Y.S.2d 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guerasio-v-new-york-state-unified-court-system-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack