In this Article 78 case the driver appeal a one year driver's license suspension which was initially imposed by an Administrative Law Judge. The driver appealed to the NYS DMV Appeals Board. The driver had fallen asleep at the wheel and her vehicle crossed over into oncoming traffic and struck a vehicle head on resulting in the death of the other vehicle's driver. The Appellate Division Second Department confirmed the one year suspension writing that the Supreme Court was incorrect in reducing the penalty to 60 days. The appeal court held that the one year suspension was not so disproportionate to the offense to be "shocking to one's sense of fairness or an abuse of discretion as a matter of law" read about this Article 78 NYS DMV case here.
Nikki is handled by the law William Scoma civil-service employees Association was able to convince the second department Appellate Division to afford and employee who was terminate arbitration prior to the termination. The Freeport Housing Authority playing employee was probationary employee. The agreement indicated under the collective bargaining agreement that probationary employees served between 26 weeks. Cheryl Scott employee in question answered for one year. Accordingly the court held that Ms. Scott entitled to an arbitration prior to termination you can read about this service civil-service discipline case by clicking here.
to see cases and information about Long Island DWI defense click here.
I have prepared a Primer on Understanding Teacher Discipline.
Click here for the Guide to Understanding Teacher Discipline
NYC HPD moved to terminate the tenancy benefits of petitioner, Perrett when it was found that Petitioner’s daughter’s $30,000 income was not reported to the subsidizing authority. The court found that termination of the tenancy was no so disproportionate to the offense in light of all the circumstances as to be shocking to once sense of fairness which is the Article 78 standard of review . Accordingly the termination of the tenancy was confirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department.
In a case handled by the Law Office of Glass & Krakower an arbitration award was reversed and but one portion of the arbitrator’s determination was affirmed. The facts underlying this case were: a Public School Teacher enrolled her granddaughter in a school whose geographical district the child did not reside in. The arbitrator recommended termination of the employee. On appeal it was found that the child was a City resident and accordingly was entitled to a tuition- free education. The final determination of the appeals court was that the teacher had filed a false instrument but the penalty of termination was inappropriate and this case was sent back to the lower court to impose a lesser appropriate penalty.
The Plaintiff was a Sergeant in the Detective Bureau of the NYPD and when she stepped off a curb to assist a motorist with directions when she was injured. The case was dismissed on motion because it was determined that she was unable to prove that the city had prior notice of the defective condition of the curb and the curb was not defective or dangerous by reason of its height therefore there was no issue to be determined by the court. Accordingly, her claim and case was dismissed.
Read about this Civil Service case here.
In an article 78 case brought in Kings County New York Sherwyn Toppin Marketing Consultants Inc. sued the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) and requested the Supreme Court reverse the SLA's decision canceling their liquor license.
Agents from the State Liquor Authority had issued violations to the bar for permitting consumption of alcoholic beverages on its premises before and after hours and a continuing pattern of noise and misconduct requiring police attention. Additionally, New York City had commenced a new Nuisance Abatement action for various misconduct and other violations in the Supreme Court.
In the Nuisance Abatement action the Supreme Court had ruled that the city had not proven their case. In the SLA proceeding administrative law judge held a hearing and found that the SLA had sustained charges 5,6, 10, 12 ,13 and 14 with the submission of sufficient evidence. The SLA board adopted the Administrative LawJudge’s findings and canceled the petitioners liquor license
Tthereafter, petitioner commenced this article 78 proceeding to appeal the cancellation. The license holder/appellant brought up the claims that the ALJs findings were contrary to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because the Nuisance Abatement Law action had been dismissed. . The court found that neither doctrine applied in this case since in the nuisance action brought by the city the Supreme Court had placed a higher and different burden of proof upon the city than the substantial evidence standard used in the SLA proceeding. Finally the court found that the penalty imposed by the SLA was not so disproportionate to the offense is to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness. Therefore the SLA determination was confirmed and the CPLR Article 78 petition appealing it was dismissed.
The Teacher Discipline process is covered under NYS Education Law 3020-a. This Ebook is a summary of the process. If you have any questions or comments or are facing charges or have an upcoming hearing please call our offices toll free at (888)998-9984.
Click here for the free Understanding Teacher Discipline EBook.
In a case brought by another law firm, Plaintiff filed a notice of claim about discriminatory acts under New York State Executive Law §296 in 2003. After lengthy absence plaintiff resumed his position with the school district in his suit plaintiff claimed there were discriminatory acts after the notice of claim was filed the Appellate Division, Second Department held that the plaintiff could not recover for acts subsequent to the notice of claim because the school district did not have notice of those subsequent acts. You can read about this discrimination case by clicking here
Recently our office was successful in getting an DEP police psychological disqualification reversed. The candidate was disqualified for "being unable to handle the stress of an interview."
Read about this disqualification case here.