Opinion
2012-07-25
In the Matter of Joann BARTHEL, petitioner, v. TOWN OF HUNTINGTON, et al., respondents.
William D. Friedman, Hempstead, N.Y., for petitioner. James P. Clark, Northport, N.Y., for respondents.
William D. Friedman, Hempstead, N.Y., for petitioner. James P. Clark, Northport, N.Y., for respondents.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, PLUMMER E. LOTT and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Director of the Department of Human Services of the Town of Huntington dated March 10, 2010, which adopted the findings and recommendation of a hearing officer, made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75, finding the petitioner guilty of certain disciplinary charges, and terminated the petitioner's employment.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The standard of review of an administrative determination made after a trial-type hearing required by law, at which evidence is taken, is limited to considering whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence ( seeCPLR 7803[4]; Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135, 140, 524 N.Y.S.2d 30, 518 N.E.2d 924;300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179–180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183;Matter of Rabidou v. County of Dutchess, 94 A.D.3d 1004, 942 N.Y.S.2d 365;Matter of Paul v. Israel, 90 A.D.3d 666, 933 N.Y.S.2d 883;Matter of Martin v. Board of Trustees of the Vil. of Pelham Manor, 86 A.D.3d 645, 646, 927 N.Y.S.2d 599). Here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination that the petitioner was guilty of the subject disciplinary charges.
Furthermore, the penalty of termination was not 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 Ellis v. Mahon, 11 N.Y.3d 754, 755, 865 N.Y.S.2d 589, 895 N.E.2d 518;Matter of Rutkunas v. Stout, 8 N.Y.3d 897, 898, 834 N.Y.S.2d 73, 865 N.E.2d 1239;Matter of Waldren v. Town of Islip, 6 N.Y.3d 735, 736–737, 810 N.Y.S.2d 408, 843 N.E.2d 1148;Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, we confirm the determination, deny the petition, and dismiss the proceeding on the merits.