Williams v. Doherty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Doherty

13 A.D.3d 185, 785 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15358

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 185 (Williams v. Doherty) 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

Williams v. Doherty, 13 A.D.3d 185, 785 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Sanitation Commissioner, dated June 6, 2003, terminating petitioner from his position as a sanitation worker, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered on or about November 10, 2003) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner violated various of respondent’s rules and regulations. No basis exists to disturb respondent’s findings of credibility (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). In view of petitioner’s history of discipline over a relatively short period of employment, the penalty does not shock our sense of fairness. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Sanitation Commissioner, dated June 6, 2003, terminating petitioner from his position as a sanitation worker, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered on or about November 10, 2003) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner violated various of respondent’s rules and regulations. No basis exists to disturb respondent’s findings of credibility (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). In view of petitioner’s history of discipline over a relatively short period of employment, the penalty does not shock our sense of fairness. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 185, 785 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-doherty-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack