Lewis v. Lipsman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewis v. Lipsman

57 A.D.3d 670, 868 N.Y.2d 541

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 670 (Lewis v. Lipsman) 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

Lewis v. Lipsman, 57 A.D.3d 670, 868 N.Y.2d 541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination that she engaged in misconduct is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436 [1987]; Matter of Alexander v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 50 AD3d 895 [2008]). Further, “[a]n administrative penalty must be upheld unless it ‘is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness,’ thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law” (Matter of Kreisler v New York City Tr. Auth., 2 NY3d 775, 776 [2004], quoting Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 237 [1974]). Here, it cannot be concluded, “as a matter of law, that the penalty [imposed] shocks the judicial conscience” (Matter of Kreisler v New York City Tr. Auth., 2 NY3d at 776; see Matter of Ellis v Mahon, 11 NY3d 754 [2008]; Matter of Torrance v Stout, 9 NY3d 1022 [2008]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.E, Florio, Miller and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination that she engaged in misconduct is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436 [1987]; Matter of Alexander v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 50 AD3d 895 [2008]). Further, “[a]n administrative penalty must be upheld unless it ‘is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness,’ thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law” (Matter of Kreisler v New York City Tr. Auth., 2 NY3d 775, 776 [2004], quoting Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 237 [1974]). Here, it cannot be concluded, “as a matter of law, that the penalty [imposed] shocks the judicial conscience” (Matter of Kreisler v New York City Tr. Auth., 2 NY3d at 776; see Matter of Ellis v Mahon, 11 NY3d 754 [2008]; Matter of Torrance v Stout, 9 NY3d 1022 [2008]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.E, Florio, Miller and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 670, 868 N.Y.2d 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-lipsman-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack