Ram v. Sak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ram v. Sak

132 A.D.2d 558, 517 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49082

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.2d 558 (Ram v. Sak) 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

Ram v. Sak, 132 A.D.2d 558, 517 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated November 12, 1985, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from his position as a town investigator.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of vacating the penalty imposed, and the proceeding is otherwise dismissed on the merits, and the matter is remitted to the respondent for the imposition of a new penalty which shall not exceed suspension for two [559]*559months without pay, and for a calculation of an award of back pay to the petitioner consisting of the salary he would have earned had he not been dismissed, less the amount of compensation which he may have earned in any other employment or occupation, and any unemployment benefits he may have received during such period.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the respondent’s determination that on one occasion the petitioner misused his position as town investigator in order to avoid paying a $10 boat ramp usage charge at the Port Jefferson Marina by falsely representing that he was on official town business (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). We have, however, found the penalty of dismissal excessive to the extent indicated. Brown, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated November 12, 1985, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from his position as a town investigator.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of vacating the penalty imposed, and the proceeding is otherwise dismissed on the merits, and the matter is remitted to the respondent for the imposition of a new penalty which shall not exceed suspension for two [559]*559months without pay, and for a calculation of an award of back pay to the petitioner consisting of the salary he would have earned had he not been dismissed, less the amount of compensation which he may have earned in any other employment or occupation, and any unemployment benefits he may have received during such period.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the respondent’s determination that on one occasion the petitioner misused his position as town investigator in order to avoid paying a $10 boat ramp usage charge at the Port Jefferson Marina by falsely representing that he was on official town business (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). We have, however, found the penalty of dismissal excessive to the extent indicated. Brown, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.2d 558, 517 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ram-v-sak-nyappdiv-1987.