Procida v. Grinker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Procida v. Grinker

154 A.D.2d 290, 546 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13404

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A.D.2d 290 (Procida v. Grinker) 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

Procida v. Grinker, 154 A.D.2d 290, 546 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In this proceeding, pursuant to CPLR article 78, transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered on July 7, 1988, to review a determination of the respondent Human Resources Administration of the City of New York, dated November 6, 1987, which suspended petitioner from his position as staff analyst, the determination is unanimously confirmed and the petition dismissed, without costs and disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the Commissioner’s determination that petitioner’s actions were insubordinate, objectionable, disruptive and unacceptable is supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436). Moreover, the petitioner failed to demonstrate bias on [291]*291the part of the Hearing Officer to mandate disqualification (Matter of O’Neil v De Santis, 40 AD2d 924). The contention that the length of the suspension was without authority is erroneous (see, Matter of Trotner v Bartlett, 54 AD2d 655, appeal dismissed 40 NY2d 1046, lv denied 41 NY2d 801). Finally, it cannot be said that the 80-day total suspension imposed was excessive (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

— In this proceeding, pursuant to CPLR article 78, transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered on July 7, 1988, to review a determination of the respondent Human Resources Administration of the City of New York, dated November 6, 1987, which suspended petitioner from his position as staff analyst, the determination is unanimously confirmed and the petition dismissed, without costs and disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the Commissioner’s determination that petitioner’s actions were insubordinate, objectionable, disruptive and unacceptable is supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436). Moreover, the petitioner failed to demonstrate bias on [291]*291the part of the Hearing Officer to mandate disqualification (Matter of O’Neil v De Santis, 40 AD2d 924). The contention that the length of the suspension was without authority is erroneous (see, Matter of Trotner v Bartlett, 54 AD2d 655, appeal dismissed 40 NY2d 1046, lv denied 41 NY2d 801). Finally, it cannot be said that the 80-day total suspension imposed was excessive (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 290, 546 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/procida-v-grinker-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack