Wawrzonek v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wawrzonek v. Frank

52 A.D.2d 608, 382 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12229

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

DecidedApril 12, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 608 (Wawrzonek v. Frank) 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

Wawrzonek v. Frank, 52 A.D.2d 608, 382 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of certain specifications and fined him a total of 40 days’ pay. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. In our view there is substantial evidence to support the specified charges against petitioner. Moreover, we find that the punishment imposed was not "' "so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” ’ ” (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, 34 NY2d 222, 233). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, 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 respondent’s determination, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of certain specifications and fined him a total of 40 days’ pay. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. In our view there is substantial evidence to support the specified charges against petitioner. Moreover, we find that the punishment imposed was not "' "so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” ’ ” (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, 34 NY2d 222, 233). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 608, 382 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wawrzonek-v-frank-nyappdiv-1976.