Harlan v. Screvane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harlan v. Screvane

69 A.D.2d 751, 414 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11360

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

DecidedApril 3, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.2d 751 (Harlan v. Screvane) 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

Harlan v. Screvane, 69 A.D.2d 751, 414 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of Off-Track Betting Corporation, dated August 24, 1977, finding petitioner guilty of departmental misconduct and dismissing him from employment, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of reducing the penalty to a suspension, without back pay, terminating 10 days after entry of the order to be entered hereon, and, except, as thus modified, confirmed. Under the circumstances we find that the penalty of permanent revocation was too severe and accordingly reduce the sanction to the extent indicated. We have examined petitioner’s other contentions and find that they are without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan and Markewich, JJ.

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

Determination of Off-Track Betting Corporation, dated August 24, 1977, finding petitioner guilty of departmental misconduct and dismissing him from employment, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of reducing the penalty to a suspension, without back pay, terminating 10 days after entry of the order to be entered hereon, and, except, as thus modified, confirmed. Under the circumstances we find that the penalty of permanent revocation was too severe and accordingly reduce the sanction to the extent indicated. We have examined petitioner’s other contentions and find that they are without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.2d 751, 414 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harlan-v-screvane-nyappdiv-1979.