Posted on November 26, 2010 by Kevin Sheerin

Court Confirms Petitioner's Termination for Misconduct.

Court Confirms Petitioner’s Termination for Misconduct.

Matter of Gibbons v. New York Unified Ct. Sys., Off. of Ct. Admin.

In this Article 78 case, Petitioner, Grace Gibbons, sought review of Respondent’s decision that found her guilty of incompetence and misconduct and terminated her employment.

Gibbons was a court reporter for the District Court in Nassau County for approximately 22 years. In May 2007, Respondent served Gibbons with a notice of disciplinary charges. At the hearing, the Office of Court Administration (OCA) stated that Petitioner was insubordinate to supervisors and a District Court Judge, failed to produce transcripts in a timely matter, and was excessively absent without sufficient notice, which left the District Court short notice to find a replacement.

In December 2008, the hearing officer recommended that Petitioner be terminated from his position. A few months later, on February 4, 2009, the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge found the Petitioner guilty of the misconduct and incompetent in at least 20 specifications. Thereafter, Gibbons was terminated.

In an Article 78 proceeding, the Appellate review is limited to whether that determination was supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” and “[t]he courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [an administrative agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists.”

The Appellate Division found that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and the penalty of termination did not shock one’s sense of fairness.

The determination was confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Read more about this Article 78 case here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on July 13, 2009 by Kevin Sheerin

Nightclub's appeal against unfair liquor authority penalties granted

Café Concerto Ltd. v New York State Liquor Authority

In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner appealed a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority which imposed a civil penalty for the violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(1) and State Liquor Authority Rule 54.2. In January of 2006, police officers responded to a complaint of underage drinking at petitioner’s premises. Four charges were brought against petitioner: allowing the sale of alcohol to an underage person, failure to exercise adequate supervision over the conduct of the business, permitting the premises to become disorderly, and allowing to premises to become disorderly by permitting an altercation to occur.

A hearing was held and the last two charges were dropped. The first two charges involving the sale of alcohol to minors were upheld because of the testimony of Officer Chowdhury. Officer Chowdhury testified that when he arrived at the premises he noticed a lot of individuals drinking at the bar who he believed to be underage. He pulled aside eight bar patrons to further question them. According to Officer Chowdhury, two of these individuals showed him identification indicating they were under 21. He sniffed their beverages and determined by smell that they contained alcohol. The other six individuals did not have identification and the Officer told them to leave because he believed them to be underage. Officer Chowdhury then issued six summonses to the bartender.

The ALJ determined that while there was no evidence to substantiate charges 3 and 4, they felt Officer Chowdhury’s testimony was credible and imposed a $7,000 civil penalty on petitioner. Petitioner then commenced this Article 78 appeal alleging that the penalty was “arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unsupported by substantial evidence, and not based upon a reasonable basis”. Petitioner argued that respondent failed to establish that alcoholic beverages were in fact sold to any individuals under 21. The Court agrees with petitioner. The burden of proof rests upon the State Liquor Authority (SLA) to prove the age of an alleged minor at the time of the violation. Since Officer Chowdhury did not make copies of the minor’s identifications there is nothing in the record to corroborate the dates of birth scribbled on the summonses. Also, there is inadequate proof that the beverages possessed by the eight individuals contained alcohol. Officer Chowdhury did not taste or field test any of the drinks. Additionally, Officer Chowdhury did not see any underage individuals being served by any bartender on the premises.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the determination, without costs.

To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

Tags: , , , , ,