Latimore v. Hyland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Latimore v. Hyland

15 A.D.3d 488, 789 N.Y.S.2d 441, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1665

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 488 (Latimore v. Hyland) 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

Latimore v. Hyland, 15 A.D.3d 488, 789 N.Y.S.2d 441, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, Ralph Butler, as Commissioner of Public Works of the County of Westchester, dated December 11, 2002, which adopted the recommendation and findings of a hearing officer, finding the petitioner guilty of misconduct and incompetence, and terminated the petitioner’s employment in the Medical Examiner’s Office in the Westchester County Department of Labs and Research.

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the respondent Ralph Butler was supported by substantial evi[489]*489dence (see People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139 [1985]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.E, Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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, Ralph Butler, as Commissioner of Public Works of the County of Westchester, dated December 11, 2002, which adopted the recommendation and findings of a hearing officer, finding the petitioner guilty of misconduct and incompetence, and terminated the petitioner’s employment in the Medical Examiner’s Office in the Westchester County Department of Labs and Research.

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the respondent Ralph Butler was supported by substantial evi[489]*489dence (see People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139 [1985]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.E, Cozier, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 488, 789 N.Y.S.2d 441, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latimore-v-hyland-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack