Tellerman v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tellerman v. New York City Transit Authority

99 A.D.2d 512, 471 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16719

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 512 (Tellerman v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Tellerman v. New York City Transit Authority, 99 A.D.2d 512, 471 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated October 26, 1981, which, [513]*513after a hearing, found petitionér guilty of a charge of misconduct and/or incompetence and dismissed him from his position as a senior mechanical engineer serving as superintendent of operations, car maintenance department. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The determination is supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed was not disproportionate to the offense (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 235). We have reviewed petitioner’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Thompson, 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 October 26, 1981, which, [513]*513after a hearing, found petitionér guilty of a charge of misconduct and/or incompetence and dismissed him from his position as a senior mechanical engineer serving as superintendent of operations, car maintenance department. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The determination is supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed was not disproportionate to the offense (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 235). We have reviewed petitioner’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 512, 471 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tellerman-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack