Porter v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Porter v. New York City Housing Authority

42 A.D.3d 314, 837 N.Y.S.2d 875

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

DecidedJuly 5, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 42 A.D.3d 314 (Porter v. New York City Housing 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

Porter v. New York City Housing Authority, 42 A.D.3d 314, 837 N.Y.S.2d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated August 25, 2005, based on a trial officer’s determination that the evidence substantiated charges against petitioner and warranted dismissal from employment, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Paul G. Feinman, J.], entered March 22, 2006), dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s challenges to the credibility determinations of the trial officer are unavailing since, in an article 78 proceeding, the reviewing court may not weigh the evidence, choose between conflicting proof, or substitute its assessment of the evidence or witness credibility for that of the administrative factfinder (Matter of Edwards v Safir, 282 AD2d 287 [2001]).

The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness or constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550 [2000]), and we have no discretionary authority or interest of justice jurisdiction to otherwise review it (Matter of Rutkunas v Stout, 8 NY3d 897 [2007]). Concur—Mazzarelli J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, dated August 25, 2005, based on a trial officer’s determination that the evidence substantiated charges against petitioner and warranted dismissal from employment, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Paul G. Feinman, J.], entered March 22, 2006), dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s challenges to the credibility determinations of the trial officer are unavailing since, in an article 78 proceeding, the reviewing court may not weigh the evidence, choose between conflicting proof, or substitute its assessment of the evidence or witness credibility for that of the administrative factfinder (Matter of Edwards v Safir, 282 AD2d 287 [2001]).

The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness or constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550 [2000]), and we have no discretionary authority or interest of justice jurisdiction to otherwise review it (Matter of Rutkunas v Stout, 8 NY3d 897 [2007]). Concur—Mazzarelli J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.3d 314, 837 N.Y.S.2d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack