MATTER OF WHITTINGTON v. Porcari

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF WHITTINGTON v. Porcari

321 N.E.2d 785, 35 N.Y.2d 839, 362 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1188

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 21, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 321 N.E.2d 785 (MATTER OF WHITTINGTON v. Porcari) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MATTER OF WHITTINGTON v. Porcari, 321 N.E.2d 785, 35 N.Y.2d 839, 362 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1188 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Judgment of the Appellate Division insofar as appealed from reversed, without costs, and the determination of the commissioner dismissing petitioner from his employment as a Property Conservation Inspector reinstated. The only issue tendered on the appeal is the appropriateness of the sanction imposed on the employee for proven dereliction in the performance of his duties. Although there is an oblique suggestion of malicious motivation and invidious discrimination in singling out petitioner for disciplinary proceedings, it is undisputed that there was substantial evidence of repeated instances.of deliberate or irresponsible failures in petitioner’s performance of his duties and his incompetence to fulfill them. Such misconduct and incompetence merited dismissal in the discretion of the commissioner. There was thus no abuse of discretion by the commissioner and therefore it was improper for the Appellate Division to substitute its judgment for his (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N Y 2d 222, especially 235, 237-239). Under the circumstances, petitioner’s status as a veteran and 11 years ’ prior service were not mitigating factors sufficient to override the new commissioner’s purported effort to improve the performance of his department.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Waohtler, Rabin and Stevens concur in memorandum.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Memorandum. Judgment of the Appellate Division insofar as appealed from reversed, without costs, and the determination of the commissioner dismissing petitioner from his employment as a Property Conservation Inspector reinstated. The only issue tendered on the appeal is the appropriateness of the sanction imposed on the employee for proven dereliction in the performance of his duties. Although there is an oblique suggestion of malicious motivation and invidious discrimination in singling out petitioner for disciplinary proceedings, it is undisputed that there was substantial evidence of repeated instances.of deliberate or irresponsible failures in petitioner’s performance of his duties and his incompetence to fulfill them. Such misconduct and incompetence merited dismissal in the discretion of the commissioner. There was thus no abuse of discretion by the commissioner and therefore it was improper for the Appellate Division to substitute its judgment for his (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N Y 2d 222, especially 235, 237-239). Under the circumstances, petitioner’s status as a veteran and 11 years ’ prior service were not mitigating factors sufficient to override the new commissioner’s purported effort to improve the performance of his department.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Waohtler, Rabin and Stevens concur in memorandum.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

321 N.E.2d 785, 35 N.Y.2d 839, 362 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-whittington-v-porcari-ny-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack