West v. County of Dutchess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

West v. County of Dutchess

227 A.D.2d 565, 643 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5332

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

DecidedMay 20, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 565 (West v. County of Dutchess) 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

West v. County of Dutchess, 227 A.D.2d 565, 643 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents, the County of Dutchess and Dutchess Community College, dated October 6, 1994, which, after a hearing, terminated the petitioner’s employment.

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

There was substantial evidence in the record to support the respondents’ determination sustaining five charges of miscon[566]*566duct on the part of the petitioner, including sexual harassment. Since the testimony posed a clear-cut issue as to the veracity of the witnesses, there is no reason to disturb the Hearing Officer’s determination respecting the witnesses’ credibility (see, Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269, 270). Where room for choice exists, it is beyond the scope of the reviewing court to weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 NY 256, 267; Matter of Gatto v Adduci, 182 AD2d 760, 761).

The penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the charged conduct so as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233-234). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Goldstein, 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 respondents, the County of Dutchess and Dutchess Community College, dated October 6, 1994, which, after a hearing, terminated the petitioner’s employment.

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

There was substantial evidence in the record to support the respondents’ determination sustaining five charges of miscon[566]*566duct on the part of the petitioner, including sexual harassment. Since the testimony posed a clear-cut issue as to the veracity of the witnesses, there is no reason to disturb the Hearing Officer’s determination respecting the witnesses’ credibility (see, Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269, 270). Where room for choice exists, it is beyond the scope of the reviewing court to weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by the Hearing Officer (see, Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 NY 256, 267; Matter of Gatto v Adduci, 182 AD2d 760, 761).

The penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the charged conduct so as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233-234). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 565, 643 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-county-of-dutchess-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack