Thurmond v. Town of North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thurmond v. Town of North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Authority

202 A.D.2d 594, 612 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2614

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 594 (Thurmond v. Town of North Hempstead Solid Waste Management 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

Thurmond v. Town of North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Authority, 202 A.D.2d 594, 612 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Town of North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Authority, dated August 15, 1991, which adopted the finding of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and terminated the petitioner’s employment.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Notwithstanding the petitioner’s contentions to the contrary, we find that the Executive Director of the respondent Town of North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Authority (hereinafter the Authority), who is charged with "the administration and the day-to-day operations of the Authority” (Code of Town of North Hempstead § 23-9.1 [B]) and who [595]*595was himself appointed to carry out the purposes of the Authority, had the requisite authority to hire and fire personnel. Moreover, he properly designated Donal M. Mahoney to hear the charges against the petitioner (see, CSEA-Town of North Hempstead 1989-1991 labor contract § XII [3] [iii]).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the Hearing Officer, which was implicitly adopted by the Executive Director in his decision, sustaining the charges of misconduct against the petitioner (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230).

We find that the penalty of termination is not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra, at 233). In so finding, we note that the Executive Director was not bound by the Hearing Officer’s recommendation with regard to punishment (see, Matter of Wiggins v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 385, 388). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Hart, 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 Town of North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Authority, dated August 15, 1991, which adopted the finding of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and terminated the petitioner’s employment.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Notwithstanding the petitioner’s contentions to the contrary, we find that the Executive Director of the respondent Town of North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Authority (hereinafter the Authority), who is charged with "the administration and the day-to-day operations of the Authority” (Code of Town of North Hempstead § 23-9.1 [B]) and who [595]*595was himself appointed to carry out the purposes of the Authority, had the requisite authority to hire and fire personnel. Moreover, he properly designated Donal M. Mahoney to hear the charges against the petitioner (see, CSEA-Town of North Hempstead 1989-1991 labor contract § XII [3] [iii]).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the Hearing Officer, which was implicitly adopted by the Executive Director in his decision, sustaining the charges of misconduct against the petitioner (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230).

We find that the penalty of termination is not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra, at 233). In so finding, we note that the Executive Director was not bound by the Hearing Officer’s recommendation with regard to punishment (see, Matter of Wiggins v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 385, 388). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 594, 612 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thurmond-v-town-of-north-hempstead-solid-waste-management-authority-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack