From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Grossman v. Kralik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 17, 1995
217 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

July 17, 1995


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

On May 14, 1992, a Supreme Court Justice reported that the petitioner, who was employed as a Deputy Sheriff Court Attendant, had fallen asleep in the courtroom while on duty. The respondent James Kralik, Sheriff of Rockland County, subsequently determined that the petitioner had committed misconduct by being derelict in his duties and discharged him from his position. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the respondent's determination was not supported by substantial evidence because the Judge who was presiding when he fell asleep in the courtroom did not testify at the administrative hearing. We disagree. It is well established that an agency can prove its case through hearsay evidence (see, People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139; see also, State Administrative Procedure Act 306), so long as it is believable, relevant, and probative (see, Matter of De Carlo v Perales, 131 A.D.2d 31; Matter of Yerry v. Ulster County, 128 A.D.2d 941, 942). Here, the Judge who witnessed the petitioner fall asleep prepared a written memorandum fully describing the incident, which was admitted into evidence. The written memorandum is believable and highly probative of the dereliction-of-duty charge and was corroborated by other testimony adduced at the hearing. Accordingly, the respondent's determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176).

Futhermore, the record indicates that the petitioner has been repeatedly disciplined in the past for the same conduct, and, under these circumstances, we cannot say that the penalty of dismissal was so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, supra).

We have examined the petitioner's remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Grossman v. Kralik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 17, 1995
217 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Grossman v. Kralik

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of GEORGE GROSSMAN, Petitioner, v. JAMES KRALIK et al.…

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

Date published: Jul 17, 1995

Citations

217 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
629 N.Y.S.2d 467

Citing Cases

Matter of Quarles v. Schembri

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Lewis Friedman, J.]. The Commissioner's determination that…

In the Matter of Clavor Schroeter v. Yonkers City Sch. Dist.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the…