Opinion
2012-04-17
In the Matter of Dawn RABIDOU, appellant, v. COUNTY OF DUTCHESS, respondent.
O'Neil & Burke, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (William T. Burke of counsel), for appellant. *366 James M. Fedorchak, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Keith P. Byron of counsel), for respondent.
O'Neil & Burke, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (William T. Burke of counsel), for appellant. *366 James M. Fedorchak, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Keith P. Byron of counsel), for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services, dated October 20, 2010, which adopted the finding and recommendation of a hearing officer dated October 19, 2010, made after a hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of a certain charge of misconduct, 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 review of administrative determinations in employee disciplinary cases made after a hearing under Civil Service Law § 75 is limited to a consideration of whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence ( see CPLR 7803[4]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183; Matter of Smith v. Carter, 61 A.D.3d 982, 876 N.Y.S.2d 903). Here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct ( see Matter of Paul v. Israel, 90 A.D.3d 666, 666, 933 N.Y.S.2d 883; Matter of Gill v. Lauro, 84 A.D.3d 958, 959, 923 N.Y.S.2d 845; Matter of Cheeseboro v. Board of Educ. of Port Chester–Rye Union Free School Dist., 82 A.D.3d 760, 760–761, 917 N.Y.S.2d 909). 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, 865 N.Y.S.2d 589, 895 N.E.2d 518; Matter of Torrance v. Stout, 9 N.Y.3d 1022, 1023, 852 N.Y.S.2d 8, 881 N.E.2d 1194; Matter of Rutkunas v. Stout, 8 N.Y.3d 897, 899, 834 N.Y.S.2d 73, 865 N.E.2d 1239; Matter of Waldren v. Town of Islip, 6 N.Y.3d 735, 736, 810 N.Y.S.2d 408, 843 N.E.2d 1148; Matter of Cheeseboro v. Board of Educ. of Port Chester–Rye Union Free School Dist., 82 A.D.3d at 760–761, 917 N.Y.S.2d 909; Matter of Thomas v. County of Rockland, Dept. of Hosps., 55 A.D.3d 745, 745–746, 865 N.Y.S.2d 661). Accordingly, we confirm the determination of the Commissioner of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services, deny the petition, and dismiss the proceeding on the merits.