In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review a determination of the Town terminating the plaintiff [Employee] based on the findings and recommendation of a disciplinary hearing officer, Supreme Court [a] denied the Town's motion to dismiss the Employee petition; [b] granted Employee's petition to the extent of annulling the penalty imposed; and [c] remitting the matter to the Town for the imposition of a less severe penalty.
The Town appealed the Supreme Court's decision.
The Appellate Division:
[1.] Confirmed the Town's disciplinary determination;
[2.] Denied the Employee's petition;
[3.] Granted the Town's motion to dismiss the Employee's petition; and
[4.] Dismissed the proceeding "on the merits".
The Appellate Division explained:
1. "In an [administrative] employee disciplinary case, judicial review of factual findings made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 is limited to consideration of whether that determination was supported by substantial evidence";
2. "Substantial evidence is related to the charge or controversy and involves a weighing of the quality and quantity of the proof; the term means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact";
3. "When there is conflicting evidence or different inferences may be drawn, the duty of weighing the evidence and making the choice rests solely upon the administrative agency"; and
4. Employee's petition raised the issue of whether the Town's determination was supported by substantial evidence, and the parties did not raise, nor did the Supreme Court address, any objection that could have terminated the proceeding within the meaning of CPLR 7804(g), the Supreme Court should have transferred the proceeding to this Court without disposing of the substantial evidence issue.
The Appellate Division opined that contrary to the Employee's contention, the record before the hearing officer contained substantial evidence to sustain the findings of misconduct and, citing Matter of Haug v State Univ. of N.Y. at Potsdam, 32 NY3d at 1046, and, contrary to the Employee's assertion, noted that "hearsay statements ... were admissible" in a Civil Service Law §75 administrative disciplinary action.
Further, said the court, "Judicial review of an administrative penalty is limited to whether the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed constitutes an abuse of discretion as a matter of law" and "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" (see Matter of Bolt v New York City Dept. of Educ., 30 NY3d 1065).
In the words of the Appellate Division: "The penalty of termination of employment imposed upon [Employee under the circumstances] did not shock one's sense of fairness," particularly considering that the incident triggering the disciplinary action was not the first time that Employee was disciplined "for engaging in such behavior."
Click HERE to access the decision of the Appellate Division posted on the Internet.
========
A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - a 442-page e-book focusing on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. Click http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html for more information.