Roach v. Plainedge Union Free School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roach v. Plainedge Union Free School District

230 A.D.2d 861, 646 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8560

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 19, 1996·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Plainedge Union Free School District, dated January 4, 1995, which, after a hearing, adopted the findings of the Judicial Hearing Officer that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and incompetency and dismissed her from her position as Stenographic Secretary.

[862]*862Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The respondent’s determination that the petitioner made false entries on her time sheets was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Further, the penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the offenses committed as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Linfield v Nyquist, 48 NY2d 1005; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra; Matter of Clark v Canandaigua City School Dist., 179 AD2d 1006, affd 80 NY2d 912; Matter of Antignano v Gunn, 134 AD2d 344).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, 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 Plainedge Union Free School District, dated January 4, 1995, which, after a hearing, adopted the findings of the Judicial Hearing Officer that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and incompetency and dismissed her from her position as Stenographic Secretary.

[862]*862Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The respondent’s determination that the petitioner made false entries on her time sheets was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Further, the penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the offenses committed as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Linfield v Nyquist, 48 NY2d 1005; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra; Matter of Clark v Canandaigua City School Dist., 179 AD2d 1006, affd 80 NY2d 912; Matter of Antignano v Gunn, 134 AD2d 344).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Roach v. Plainedge Union Free School District, 230 A.D.2d 861, 646 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

230 A.D.2d 861 (Roach v. Plainedge Union Free School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related