Smith v. Hager

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Hager

185 A.D.2d 612, 586 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9123

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 185 A.D.2d 612 (Smith v. Hager) 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

Smith v. Hager, 185 A.D.2d 612, 586 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9123 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Although there was substantial evidence to support a determination of misconduct, we find that the 30-day suspension imposed by respondent was improper. The county’s rules of conduct provide that an oral warning is an appropriate sanction for a first offense of "[ejngaging in conduct which may result in a safety hazard”. Regardless of whether we accept respondent’s assertion that the rules were merely intended as guidelines, we conclude that the sanction is so disproportionate as to shock [613]*613one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233-234). Therefore, the matter is remitted to respondent for imposition of an appropriate sanction (see, Matter of Kerins v City of Niagara Falls, 167 AD2d 846). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Finnerty, J.)

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

Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Although there was substantial evidence to support a determination of misconduct, we find that the 30-day suspension imposed by respondent was improper. The county’s rules of conduct provide that an oral warning is an appropriate sanction for a first offense of "[ejngaging in conduct which may result in a safety hazard”. Regardless of whether we accept respondent’s assertion that the rules were merely intended as guidelines, we conclude that the sanction is so disproportionate as to shock [613]*613one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233-234). Therefore, the matter is remitted to respondent for imposition of an appropriate sanction (see, Matter of Kerins v City of Niagara Falls, 167 AD2d 846). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Finnerty, J.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 612, 586 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-hager-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack