Meehan v. Schembri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meehan v. Schembri

251 A.D.2d 200, 675 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7375

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

DecidedJune 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 200 (Meehan v. Schembri) 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

Meehan v. Schembri, 251 A.D.2d 200, 675 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7375 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered March 27, 1997, which, upon the report and recommendation of a Judicial Hearing Officer, denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination demoting petitioner from a Level III Warden position to a Level I Assistant Deputy Warden position, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant the petition to the extent of vacating the penalty imposed and remanding the matter to respondents for reconsideration of the appropriate penalty to impose, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that petitioner failed to establish that the real reason he was demoted was in retaliation for his union activities and his filing of a discrimination complaint. Respondents presented evidence, credited after a CPLR 7804 (h) hearing, that petitioner questioned respondents’ policy concerning hospital visits to wounded correction officers and reacted with aggressive defiance to a superior’s attempt to “correct” his relúctance, failed to follow the protocol of saluting a superior officer on at least two occasions and was evaluated by respondents’ psychologist as having a questionable ability to follow authority.

However, we find petitioner’s demotion from a relatively high managerial position to a nonmanagerial position is so disproportionate to his conduct as to shock one’s sense of fairness. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered March 27, 1997, which, upon the report and recommendation of a Judicial Hearing Officer, denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondents’ determination demoting petitioner from a Level III Warden position to a Level I Assistant Deputy Warden position, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant the petition to the extent of vacating the penalty imposed and remanding the matter to respondents for reconsideration of the appropriate penalty to impose, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that petitioner failed to establish that the real reason he was demoted was in retaliation for his union activities and his filing of a discrimination complaint. Respondents presented evidence, credited after a CPLR 7804 (h) hearing, that petitioner questioned respondents’ policy concerning hospital visits to wounded correction officers and reacted with aggressive defiance to a superior’s attempt to “correct” his relúctance, failed to follow the protocol of saluting a superior officer on at least two occasions and was evaluated by respondents’ psychologist as having a questionable ability to follow authority.

However, we find petitioner’s demotion from a relatively high managerial position to a nonmanagerial position is so disproportionate to his conduct as to shock one’s sense of fairness. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 200, 675 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meehan-v-schembri-nyappdiv-1998.