Hansley v. Koehler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hansley v. Koehler

169 A.D.2d 545, 564 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 475

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 169 A.D.2d 545 (Hansley v. Koehler) 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

Hansley v. Koehler, 169 A.D.2d 545, 564 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 475 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the respondent Correction Commissioner, dated September 26, 1989, terminating petitioner’s employment, unanimously confirmed, and the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of Sup Ct, NY County [Myriam J. Altman, J.], entered Dec. 27, 1989) is unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner was discharged as a correction officer for committing acts of sexual harassment against a female correction officer. Neither the fact that the female correction officer did not immediately report the incidents nor the lack of corroborating witnesses was fatal to the allegations of sexual abuse. [546]*546The respondent agency was entitled to find that the initial failure to report the incident was due to the fact that the female officer was a probationary officer and did not want to "make waves”. Further, there is no requirement of corroboration. Essentially, resolution of the charges depended on the agency’s determination as to credibility, which, under these circumstances, we do not disturb. (Matter of Rivera v Beekman, 86 AD2d 1.) Nor do we find the penalty imposed disproportionate to the offense. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

Determination of the respondent Correction Commissioner, dated September 26, 1989, terminating petitioner’s employment, unanimously confirmed, and the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of Sup Ct, NY County [Myriam J. Altman, J.], entered Dec. 27, 1989) is unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner was discharged as a correction officer for committing acts of sexual harassment against a female correction officer. Neither the fact that the female correction officer did not immediately report the incidents nor the lack of corroborating witnesses was fatal to the allegations of sexual abuse. [546]*546The respondent agency was entitled to find that the initial failure to report the incident was due to the fact that the female officer was a probationary officer and did not want to "make waves”. Further, there is no requirement of corroboration. Essentially, resolution of the charges depended on the agency’s determination as to credibility, which, under these circumstances, we do not disturb. (Matter of Rivera v Beekman, 86 AD2d 1.) Nor do we find the penalty imposed disproportionate to the offense. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 545, 564 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansley-v-koehler-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack