Jenkins v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jenkins v. State

67 A.D.3d 567, 888 N.Y.S.2d 405

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 19, 2009·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered January 23, 2009, dismissing this proceeding to annul an administrative order of respondent Public Employment Relations Board, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The agency determination was neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious (Swakeen v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 39 AD3d 287 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]). Ample evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the administrative law judge’s credibility determinations should not be [568]*568disturbed (see Matter of D’Augusta v Bratton, 259 AD2d 287 [1999]). Furthermore, the evidence established that respondent United Federation of Teachers did not breach its duty of fair representation (see Mellon v Benker, 186 AD2d 1020 [1992]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Sweeny, Nardelli, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered January 23, 2009, dismissing this proceeding to annul an administrative order of respondent Public Employment Relations Board, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The agency determination was neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious (Swakeen v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 39 AD3d 287 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]). Ample evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the administrative law judge’s credibility determinations should not be [568]*568disturbed (see Matter of D’Augusta v Bratton, 259 AD2d 287 [1999]). Furthermore, the evidence established that respondent United Federation of Teachers did not breach its duty of fair representation (see Mellon v Benker, 186 AD2d 1020 [1992]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Sweeny, Nardelli, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

Jenkins v. State, 67 A.D.3d 567, 888 N.Y.S.2d 405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

67 A.D.3d 567 (Jenkins v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related