Moccio v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moccio v. State

200 A.D.2d 574, 606 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 138

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 574 (Moccio v. State) 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

Moccio v. State, 200 A.D.2d 574, 606 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Office of Court Administration, dated June 2, 1992, which adopted the recommendation of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of certain disciplinary charges, and thereupon dismissed him from his position as a Senior Court Officer.

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

The determination that the petitioner was not at his assigned post on more than one occasion, that he carried an unregistered automatic weapon, and that he was insubordinate is supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176). The penalty imposed, dismissal, is not so disproportionate to these offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Lawrence, 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 Office of Court Administration, dated June 2, 1992, which adopted the recommendation of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of certain disciplinary charges, and thereupon dismissed him from his position as a Senior Court Officer.

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

The determination that the petitioner was not at his assigned post on more than one occasion, that he carried an unregistered automatic weapon, and that he was insubordinate is supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176). The penalty imposed, dismissal, is not so disproportionate to these offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 574, 606 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moccio-v-state-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack