Hundley v. Kralik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hundley v. Kralik

247 A.D.2d 616, 668 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1742

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 616 (Hundley v. Kralik) 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

Hundley v. Kralik, 247 A.D.2d 616, 668 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, James Kralik, Sheriff of Rock-land Count j dated September 28, 1995, which adopted the recommendation of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct and imposed the penalty of dismissal from his position as a correction officer.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The respondent’s determination was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176). The conflicting testimony presented at the hearing raised issues of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436; Matter of Schurr v Wingate, 243 AD2d 571; Matter of LaCanfora v Lloyd, 229 AD2d 496). This record provides no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer’s resolution of those issues in favor of the respondent. Further, the penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the offenses committed as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 [617]*617NY2d 222).

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, James Kralik, Sheriff of Rock-land Count j dated September 28, 1995, which adopted the recommendation of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct and imposed the penalty of dismissal from his position as a correction officer.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The respondent’s determination was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176). The conflicting testimony presented at the hearing raised issues of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436; Matter of Schurr v Wingate, 243 AD2d 571; Matter of LaCanfora v Lloyd, 229 AD2d 496). This record provides no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer’s resolution of those issues in favor of the respondent. Further, the penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the offenses committed as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 [617]*617NY2d 222).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 616, 668 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hundley-v-kralik-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack