Jones v. McCarthy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. McCarthy

7 A.D.2d 710, 179 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4055

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.2d 710 (Jones v. McCarthy) 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

Jones v. McCarthy, 7 A.D.2d 710, 179 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to amend the record made, on the argument is granted and the report and recommendation of the hearing officer is made part of the record on appeal. The determination is confirmed insofar as it sustains certain charges. We find the dismissal with consequent loss of pay privileges and pension rights in the circumstances of this case was harsh and unwarranted and, therefore, must be considered an abuse of discretion. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296, subd. 5-a; Matter of Nagin v. Zurmuhlen, 6 A D 2d 677; Matter of Nimelman v. ICross, 5 A D 2d 984.) The determination is modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of annulling the dismissal of the petitioner and the proceeding is remitted to the commissioner for the imposition of disciplinary measures consistent herewith. (Civil Service Law, § 22, subd. 2.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, and McNally, JJ.

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

Motion to amend the record made, on the argument is granted and the report and recommendation of the hearing officer is made part of the record on appeal. The determination is confirmed insofar as it sustains certain charges. We find the dismissal with consequent loss of pay privileges and pension rights in the circumstances of this case was harsh and unwarranted and, therefore, must be considered an abuse of discretion. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296, subd. 5-a; Matter of Nagin v. Zurmuhlen, 6 A D 2d 677; Matter of Nimelman v. ICross, 5 A D 2d 984.) The determination is modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of annulling the dismissal of the petitioner and the proceeding is remitted to the commissioner for the imposition of disciplinary measures consistent herewith. (Civil Service Law, § 22, subd. 2.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 710, 179 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-mccarthy-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack