Ivory v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ivory v. City of New York

125 A.D.2d 217, 509 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62492

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 217 (Ivory v. City of New York) 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

Ivory v. City of New York, 125 A.D.2d 217, 509 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

— Order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Gammerman, J.), entered September 11, 1985, which granted the petition and annulled the final determination of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, dated October 5, 1984, terminating petitioner from city service, solely to the extent of remanding the matter to respondent for the imposition of a penalty other than that which would deprive him of his job and accumulated pension, is reversed, on the law, and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The facts as set forth in the dissent are fairly stated. Both Special Term and the dissent view the penalty of termination imposed by the Commissioner to be shocking to the court’s sense of fairness. The majority is of the opinion, however, that [218]*218it cannot interfere with the sanction imposed. Thus, while the penalty may have been severe, especially in light of petitioner’s length of service, the test mandated for a reviewing court is not whether it would have imposed the same or a different penalty, but whether the Commissioner acted reasonably within the scope of his authority (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 238). As noted by the Court of Appeals in Pell (p 238): "[p]ensions are not only compensation for services rendered, but they serve also as a reward for faithfulness to duty and honesty of performance”.

It should be noted that petitioner’s activities in collecting football bets while on duty attracted considerable notoriety in the small community in which he was employed. In light of all the facts present before the Commissioner, including the independent illegality of petitioner’s conduct while absent from his duties and the tendency in the small community for petitioner’s activities to bring disrepute upon the agency, it cannot be said that " 'the measure of punishment or discipline imposed is so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.’ ” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra, p 233.) Concur — Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Asch, JJ.

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

— Order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Gammerman, J.), entered September 11, 1985, which granted the petition and annulled the final determination of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, dated October 5, 1984, terminating petitioner from city service, solely to the extent of remanding the matter to respondent for the imposition of a penalty other than that which would deprive him of his job and accumulated pension, is reversed, on the law, and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The facts as set forth in the dissent are fairly stated. Both Special Term and the dissent view the penalty of termination imposed by the Commissioner to be shocking to the court’s sense of fairness. The majority is of the opinion, however, that [218]*218it cannot interfere with the sanction imposed. Thus, while the penalty may have been severe, especially in light of petitioner’s length of service, the test mandated for a reviewing court is not whether it would have imposed the same or a different penalty, but whether the Commissioner acted reasonably within the scope of his authority (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 238). As noted by the Court of Appeals in Pell (p 238): "[p]ensions are not only compensation for services rendered, but they serve also as a reward for faithfulness to duty and honesty of performance”.

It should be noted that petitioner’s activities in collecting football bets while on duty attracted considerable notoriety in the small community in which he was employed. In light of all the facts present before the Commissioner, including the independent illegality of petitioner’s conduct while absent from his duties and the tendency in the small community for petitioner’s activities to bring disrepute upon the agency, it cannot be said that " 'the measure of punishment or discipline imposed is so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.’ ” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra, p 233.) Concur — Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 217, 509 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ivory-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack