McKnight v. Gunn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McKnight v. Gunn

139 A.D.2d 514, 526 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3767

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

DecidedApril 4, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.2d 514 (McKnight v. Gunn) 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

McKnight v. Gunn, 139 A.D.2d 514, 526 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York City Transit Authority dated June 16, 1986, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and/or incompetence and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the respondents’ determination that the petitioner violated the rules and regulations of the New York City Transit Authority was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Moreover, the penalty recommendation of the Hearing Officer, while entitled to great weight, was [515]*515not conclusive and could be disregarded by the official upon whom has been imposed the power to remove an employee or mete out discipline, provided that his action is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391; Matter of St. John’s Queens Hosp. v Axelrod, 137 AD2d 605). In this instance, based on the danger created by the failure to abide by the applicable rules of procedure, the penalty imposed was not shocking (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Hooper, 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 New York City Transit Authority dated June 16, 1986, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and/or incompetence and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the respondents’ determination that the petitioner violated the rules and regulations of the New York City Transit Authority was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Moreover, the penalty recommendation of the Hearing Officer, while entitled to great weight, was [515]*515not conclusive and could be disregarded by the official upon whom has been imposed the power to remove an employee or mete out discipline, provided that his action is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391; Matter of St. John’s Queens Hosp. v Axelrod, 137 AD2d 605). In this instance, based on the danger created by the failure to abide by the applicable rules of procedure, the penalty imposed was not shocking (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 514, 526 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcknight-v-gunn-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack