From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Anderson v. Bd. of Dir. of Powelton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 18, 2001
284 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued May 23, 2001.

June 18, 2001.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated February 16, 2000, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of five charges of misconduct, and suspended his membership privileges for a period of 90 days

J. Bennett Farrell, Monroe, N.Y., for petitioner.

Drake, Sommers, Loeb, Tarshis Catania, PLLC, Newburgh, N Y (Kathleen A. Mishkin of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The petitioner is a member of the Powelton Club (hereinafter the Club). The respondent, the Board of Directors of the Powelton Club (hereinafter the Board), charged the petitioner with 10 specific instances of misconduct in violation of the Club's by-laws. After a hearing at which he was represented by counsel, the Board found the petitioner guilty of five of the charges, and suspended his membership privileges for a period of 90 days. The petitioner then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review that determination, and the proceeding was transferred to this court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) by order dated June 30, 2000.

Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, there is substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that he engaged in conduct that violated the Club's by-laws (see, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176; see also, Caposella v. Pinto, 265 A.D.2d 362; Matter of Purpura v. Richmond County Country Club, 114 A.D.2d 460). Furthermore, the 90-day suspension was not so disproportionate to the misconduct as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222). The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re Anderson v. Bd. of Dir. of Powelton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 18, 2001
284 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

In re Anderson v. Bd. of Dir. of Powelton

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ARTHUR ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 18, 2001

Citations

284 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
726 N.Y.S.2d 864

Citing Cases

Lennox v. Tarrytown

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The Supreme Court correctly determined that the respondent…