Opinion
May 13, 1996
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, there was substantial evidence to support the determination of misconduct under Specification I and Specification IV ( see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176; Matter of Hall v. Del Castillo, 174 A.D.2d 743).
Moreover, in light of the tape-recorded admissions made by the petitioner, there was substantial evidence to support the determination of misconduct under Specification II and Specification III ( see, Matter of Wiggins v. Board of Educ., 60 N.Y.2d 385, 388; Matter of Simpson v. Wolansky, 38 N.Y.2d 391, 394; Matter of Thurmond v. Town of N. Hempstead Solid Waste Mgt. Auth., 202 A.D.2d 594, 595).
Finally, the penalty of dismissal is not so disproportionate in light of all the circumstances as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness ( see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233; Matter of Longo v. Dolce, 192 A.D.2d 157, 162; cf., Matter of Schuster v. Babylon Union Free School Dist., 138 A.D.2d 608). Sullivan, J.P., Hart, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.