McQueeney v. Dutchess County Sheriff

223 A.D.2d 710, 637 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 646
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 29, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 710 (McQueeney v. Dutchess County Sheriff) 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
McQueeney v. Dutchess County Sheriff, 223 A.D.2d 710, 637 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Dutchess County Sheriff, dated December 7, 1993, which, after a hearing, terminated the petitioner’s employment as a correction officer.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

To annul an administrative determination made after a hearing, a court must conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Decker v Scoralick, 209 AD2d 517). The petitioner’s contention that the Sheriff’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence is without merit. The testimony at the hearing established the facts necessary to sustain the charges against the petitioner. The Hearing Officer decided to credit the respondents’ witnesses and not the testimony of the petitioner and [711]*711his witnesses. A reviewing court may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by the Hearing Officer where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists (see, Matter of Decker v Scoralick, supra; Matter of Gatto v Adduci, 182 AD2d 760). The Hearing Officer’s findings were based on evidence of record and were in a form to permit intelligent review (see, Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391; Matter of Decker v Scoralick, supra). The petitioner’s contention that the penalty of termination was excessive is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Dente v. Martinez
15 A.D.3d 656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Butler v. County of Dutchess
3 A.D.3d 563 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Maspeth Avenue Operating Corp. v. Martinez
2 A.D.3d 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Ferrara Equipment, Inc. v. Martinez
305 A.D.2d 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Salamone v. Landi
280 A.D.2d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Hanley v. County of Putnam
277 A.D.2d 381 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc. v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
266 A.D.2d 284 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Schindlar v. Incorporated Village of Lloyd Harbor
261 A.D.2d 626 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Thomas v. City of Mount Vernon Department of Public Safety
249 A.D.2d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Pesantes v. Freund
247 A.D.2d 391 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
LaCanfora v. Lloyd
229 A.D.2d 496 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
223 A.D.2d 710, 637 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcqueeney-v-dutchess-county-sheriff-nyappdiv-1996.