Pryce v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pryce v. New York City Housing Authority

69 A.D.3d 497, 894 N.Y.2d 40

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 497 (Pryce 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

Pryce v. New York City Housing Authority, 69 A.D.3d 497, 894 N.Y.2d 40 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

The findings that petitioner committed misconduct by driving agency vehicles unsafely, sleeping while on duty, and failing to report an arrest are supported by substantial evidence, including the testimony of petitioner’s coworkers and supervisors (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). The penalty of termination of employment does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kocur v Erie County Water Auth., 9 AD3d 910, 911 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 703 [2005]; Matter of Malloch v Ballston Spa Cent. School Dist., 249 AD2d 797, 800 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 810 [1998]; Matter of Smith v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Kingston, 125 AD2d 813, 813 [1986]; Matter of Marsh v Hanley, 50 AD2d 687, 687-688 [1975]). Concur—Gonzalez, PJ., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

The findings that petitioner committed misconduct by driving agency vehicles unsafely, sleeping while on duty, and failing to report an arrest are supported by substantial evidence, including the testimony of petitioner’s coworkers and supervisors (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). The penalty of termination of employment does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kocur v Erie County Water Auth., 9 AD3d 910, 911 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 703 [2005]; Matter of Malloch v Ballston Spa Cent. School Dist., 249 AD2d 797, 800 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 810 [1998]; Matter of Smith v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Kingston, 125 AD2d 813, 813 [1986]; Matter of Marsh v Hanley, 50 AD2d 687, 687-688 [1975]). Concur—Gonzalez, PJ., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 497, 894 N.Y.2d 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pryce-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack