Lowery v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lowery v. State

244 A.D.2d 192, 664 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11369

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 192 (Lowery v. State) 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

Lowery v. State, 244 A.D.2d 192, 664 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, dated October 21, 1996, which terminated petitioner’s employment effective October 25, 1996, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Jeffrey Atlas, J.], entered March 28, 1997), dismissed, without costs.

The determination is based on substantial evidence that petitioner disregarded express directives of her supervisor (see, Matter of Plante v Buono, 172 AD2d 81, 84-85, lv denied 79 NY2d 756). The penalty of termination is not excessive in these circumstances. We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, dated October 21, 1996, which terminated petitioner’s employment effective October 25, 1996, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Jeffrey Atlas, J.], entered March 28, 1997), dismissed, without costs.

The determination is based on substantial evidence that petitioner disregarded express directives of her supervisor (see, Matter of Plante v Buono, 172 AD2d 81, 84-85, lv denied 79 NY2d 756). The penalty of termination is not excessive in these circumstances. We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 192, 664 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowery-v-state-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack