Opinion
2003-02174.
Decided March 29, 2004.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents Westchester County Health Care Corporation and Edward Stolzenberg dated December 2, 2002, which adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner employee committed misconduct and suspending her from employment without pay for a period of 45 days.
James M. Rose, White Plains, N.Y., for petitioner.
Gregory F. Meehan, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Elizabeth T. Hill and Barbara Kukowski of counsel), for respondents.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION JUDGMENT
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the meeting her supervisor directed her to attend was not a disciplinary hearing within the meaning of Civil Service Law § 75 ( see Matter of Alpert v. Grecco, 73 A.D.2d 710; Donofrio v. Hastings, 54 A.D.2d 1110; Matter of Ector v. Salzmann, 54 A.D.2d 1017). Nor did her supervisor's memorandum, describing the petitioner's behavior at the meeting and characterizing the petitioner's prior refusals to attend the meeting as insubordination, constitute a formal reprimand or discipline ( see Tomaka v. Evans-Brant Cent. School Dist., 107 A.D.2d 1078, affd 65 N.Y.2d 1048; Matter of Alpert v. Grecco, supra). Thus, the petitioner was not entitled to have a union representative present at the meeting, or to refuse to attend it if such a representative were absent ( see Matter of Ector v. Salzmann, supra). The determination that the petitioner was insubordinate and interfered with her supervisor's duties by twice refusing to attend the meeting is thus supported by substantial evidence in the record ( see Matter of Ector v. Salzmann, supra), and we find no basis for disturbing the hearing officer's credibility assessments and the inferences drawn from the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing ( see Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443; Matter of Lawrence v. Edwards, 261 A.D.2d 404).
We also find that the 45-day suspension without pay does not shock one's sense of fairness ( see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233-235; Matter of Lemoine v. New York City Tr. Auth., 227 A.D.2d 403; Matter of Koupash v. Board of Educ. of Bolton Cent. School, 72 A.D.2d 885; Matter of Ector v. Salzmann, supra).
ALTMAN, J.P., H. MILLER, COZIER and MASTRO, JJ., concur.