Matter of Mancini v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Mancini v. New York City Hous. Auth.

126 A.D.3d 426, 2 N.Y.S.3d 345

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2015

Docket14403 100328/13

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 426 (Matter of Mancini v. New York City Hous. Auth.) 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

Matter of Mancini v. New York City Hous. Auth., 126 A.D.3d 426, 2 N.Y.S.3d 345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated October 25, 2012, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of disciplinary charges, *427 and suspended his employment for 31 work days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Doris Ling-Cohan, J.], entered Nov. 29, 2013), dismissed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner engaged in an incident of workplace violence is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). Petitioner’s supervisor testified that petitioner threatened him as petitioner stood near him, holding wood or another object in his hand, and raised the wood while getting angrier in his statements to the supervisor. There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Trial Officer (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

Based on respondent’s strong concern with promoting a nonviolent workplace, the suspension imposed does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32 [2001]; see also Matter of Dockery v New York City Hous. Auth., 51 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 704 [2008]; Matter of Sindoni v County of Tioga, 67 AD3d 1183, 1184-1185 [3d Dept 2009]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, dated October 25, 2012, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of disciplinary charges, *427 and suspended his employment for 31 work days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Doris Ling-Cohan, J.], entered Nov. 29, 2013), dismissed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner engaged in an incident of workplace violence is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). Petitioner’s supervisor testified that petitioner threatened him as petitioner stood near him, holding wood or another object in his hand, and raised the wood while getting angrier in his statements to the supervisor. There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Trial Officer (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

Based on respondent’s strong concern with promoting a nonviolent workplace, the suspension imposed does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32 [2001]; see also Matter of Dockery v New York City Hous. Auth., 51 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 704 [2008]; Matter of Sindoni v County of Tioga, 67 AD3d 1183, 1184-1185 [3d Dept 2009]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 426, 2 N.Y.S.3d 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-mancini-v-new-york-city-hous-auth-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack