Waldren v. Town of Islip

New York Court of Appeals

Waldren v. Town of Islip

843 N.E.2d 1148, 6 N.Y.3d 735, 810 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 3394

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by34 cases

This text of 843 N.E.2d 1148 (Waldren v. Town of Islip) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Waldren v. Town of Islip, 843 N.E.2d 1148, 6 N.Y.3d 735, 810 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 3394 (N.Y. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, to the extent that it annulled so much of the Town’s determination as imposed a penalty and remitted for imposition of a less severe penalty, and the petition dismissed.

An administrative penalty must be upheld unless it “is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness,” thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester [737]*737County, 34 NY2d 222, 237 [1974]). Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be concluded that the penalty of termination imposed by the Commissioner shocks the judicial conscience. Petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with costs, and petition dismissed, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, to the extent that it annulled so much of the Town’s determination as imposed a penalty and remitted for imposition of a less severe penalty, and the petition dismissed.

An administrative penalty must be upheld unless it “is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness,” thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester [737]*737County, 34 NY2d 222, 237 [1974]). Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be concluded that the penalty of termination imposed by the Commissioner shocks the judicial conscience. Petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with costs, and petition dismissed, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

843 N.E.2d 1148, 6 N.Y.3d 735, 810 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2005 N.Y. LEXIS 3394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waldren-v-town-of-islip-ny-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack