Payton v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Payton v. New York City Transit Authority

8 A.D.2d 602, 184 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9115

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

DecidedApril 21, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 A.D.2d 602 (Payton v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Payton v. New York City Transit Authority, 8 A.D.2d 602, 184 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinions

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department by an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in New York County) to review a determination of the New York City Transit Authority dismissing petitioner from his position as a patrolman in the Transit Police Department.

Memorandum by the Court.

Apparently we are all agreed that there is sufficient and substantial evidence to sustain the determination of respondent as to petitioner’s misconduct. From our examination of the whole record, we do not view petitioner’s dismissal for misconduct as “so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.” (Matter of Stolz v. Board of Regents, 4 A D 2d 361, 364.)

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

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department by an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in New York County) to review a determination of the New York City Transit Authority dismissing petitioner from his position as a patrolman in the Transit Police Department.

Memorandum by the Court.

Apparently we are all agreed that there is sufficient and substantial evidence to sustain the determination of respondent as to petitioner’s misconduct. From our examination of the whole record, we do not view petitioner’s dismissal for misconduct as “so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.” (Matter of Stolz v. Board of Regents, 4 A D 2d 361, 364.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 602, 184 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payton-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack