Mullusky v. New York City Department of Parks & Recreation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mullusky v. New York City Department of Parks & Recreation

86 A.D.3d 428, 926 N.Y.2d 294

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

DecidedJuly 7, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.3d 428 (Mullusky v. New York City Department of Parks & Recreation) 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

Mullusky v. New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, 86 A.D.3d 428, 926 N.Y.2d 294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[429]*429The determination that petitioner violated agency rules by uttering anti-Semitic remarks and engaging in anti-Semitic conduct, for the purpose of harassing a Jewish coworker, is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). We perceive no basis to disturb the administrative law judge’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness in light of petitioner’s conduct and his prior disciplinary history (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 39-40 [2001]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

[429]*429The determination that petitioner violated agency rules by uttering anti-Semitic remarks and engaging in anti-Semitic conduct, for the purpose of harassing a Jewish coworker, is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). We perceive no basis to disturb the administrative law judge’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness in light of petitioner’s conduct and his prior disciplinary history (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 39-40 [2001]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.3d 428, 926 N.Y.2d 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullusky-v-new-york-city-department-of-parks-recreation-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack