Rochester v. Guido

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rochester v. Guido

56 A.D.2d 889, 393 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11279

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 889 (Rochester v. Guido) 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

Rochester v. Guido, 56 A.D.2d 889, 393 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, dated May 18, 1976 and made after a hearing, which found petitioner guilty of a certain specification and fined him two days’ pay. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. There was substantial evidence supporting the determination that petitioner had made false statements to a superior who was investigating a complaint that had [890]*890been lodged against petitioner. The fine of two days’ pay imposed against him was not " 'shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ ” (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin and Mellen, 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 respondent’s determination, dated May 18, 1976 and made after a hearing, which found petitioner guilty of a certain specification and fined him two days’ pay. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. There was substantial evidence supporting the determination that petitioner had made false statements to a superior who was investigating a complaint that had [890]*890been lodged against petitioner. The fine of two days’ pay imposed against him was not " 'shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ ” (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin and Mellen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 889, 393 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rochester-v-guido-nyappdiv-1977.