Smack v. Pattison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smack v. Pattison

80 A.D.2d 874, 436 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10721

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 80 A.D.2d 874 (Smack v. Pattison) 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

Smack v. Pattison, 80 A.D.2d 874, 436 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Sheriff of Dutchess County, dated March 3, 1980, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of certain misconduct and terminated his employment. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The determination that petitioner was repeatedly late or absent from work without appropriate excuse and that he failed to attend mandatory training sessions, is supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Titone, J.P., Rabin, Margett and Weinstein, 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 Sheriff of Dutchess County, dated March 3, 1980, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of certain misconduct and terminated his employment. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The determination that petitioner was repeatedly late or absent from work without appropriate excuse and that he failed to attend mandatory training sessions, is supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Titone, J.P., Rabin, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 874, 436 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smack-v-pattison-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack