Yavner v. Sugarman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yavner v. Sugarman

38 A.D.2d 813, 329 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5363

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 813 (Yavner v. Sugarman) 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

Yavner v. Sugarman, 38 A.D.2d 813, 329 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Commissioner of Social Services, dated March 17, 1971, dismissing petitioner from his position as a caseworker, unanimously annulled, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the matter remanded to the Commissioner for rehearing and reconsideration. The evidence at the hearing consisted of documentary exhibits of the Criminal Court proceedings wherein the petitioner pleaded guilty to violation of subdivision 1 of section 240.25 of the Penal Law (harassment). This was not the original crime alleged of endangering the welfare of a minor (§ 260.15). The plea then was not to the morals aspect of the complaint, and this is made clear in the minutes of the plea. The petitioner testified at this hearing before the Commissioner and denied the morals charge. Since there was no corroboration of the documentary evidence, respondent, in relying on this hearsay evidence, has not met the burden of “substantial evidence”. (Cf. Matter of Erdman v. Ingraham, 28 A D 2d 5.) The witnesses necessary to respondent’s case can be presented on any subsequent hearing to afford the petitioner the right to controvert the charges against him at a fair and complete hearing. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Markewich, Nunez and Murphy, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Commissioner of Social Services, dated March 17, 1971, dismissing petitioner from his position as a caseworker, unanimously annulled, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the matter remanded to the Commissioner for rehearing and reconsideration. The evidence at the hearing consisted of documentary exhibits of the Criminal Court proceedings wherein the petitioner pleaded guilty to violation of subdivision 1 of section 240.25 of the Penal Law (harassment). This was not the original crime alleged of endangering the welfare of a minor (§ 260.15). The plea then was not to the morals aspect of the complaint, and this is made clear in the minutes of the plea. The petitioner testified at this hearing before the Commissioner and denied the morals charge. Since there was no corroboration of the documentary evidence, respondent, in relying on this hearsay evidence, has not met the burden of “substantial evidence”. (Cf. Matter of Erdman v. Ingraham, 28 A D 2d 5.) The witnesses necessary to respondent’s case can be presented on any subsequent hearing to afford the petitioner the right to controvert the charges against him at a fair and complete hearing. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Markewich, Nunez and Murphy, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 813, 329 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yavner-v-sugarman-nyappdiv-1972.