Halpin v. Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Halpin v. Klein

62 A.D.3d 403, 878 N.Y.S.2d 45

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

DecidedMay 5, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 62 A.D.3d 403 (Halpin v. Klein) 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

Halpin v. Klein, 62 A.D.3d 403, 878 N.Y.S.2d 45 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, dated August 30, 2007, terminating petitioner’s 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 [Emily Jane Goodman, J.], entered March 12, 2008) dismissed, without costs.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987])—including global positioning software records, petitioner’s time cards, and eyewitness testimony—establishing that petitioner left work early on 63 occasions over a four-month period and submitted falsified time cards for his work on those dates. Given these circumstances, the penalty is not excessive (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 234-236 [1974]). Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Buckley, Catterson, McGuire and Renwick, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, dated August 30, 2007, terminating petitioner’s 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 [Emily Jane Goodman, J.], entered March 12, 2008) dismissed, without costs.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987])—including global positioning software records, petitioner’s time cards, and eyewitness testimony—establishing that petitioner left work early on 63 occasions over a four-month period and submitted falsified time cards for his work on those dates. Given these circumstances, the penalty is not excessive (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 234-236 [1974]). Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Buckley, Catterson, McGuire and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 403, 878 N.Y.S.2d 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halpin-v-klein-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack