Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of David G. DEWEY, Petitioner, v. Elroy POWLEY, as President of Board of Fire Commissioners of City of Lockport, and Board of Fire Commissioners of City of Lockport, Respondents.
The determination that petitioner violated Lockport Fire Department (Fire Department) rules by sleeping on duty during the day shift, failing to conduct himself in a manner that reflected favorably on the Fire Department, and engaging in behavior that brought discredit or disgrace upon the Fire Department is supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 181-182, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183). In view of the number of instances of misconduct within the relatively short period of petitioner's employment with the Fire Department, the penalty of dismissal is not so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321; Matter of Wickert v. Aponte, 129 A.D.2d 803, 514 N.Y.S.2d 794).
Because the petition raised a substantial evidence issue, Supreme Court properly transferred that issue and the issue of the severity of the penalty to this Court (see, CPLR 7804[g] ). The court erred, however, in ruling on the other legal issue raised therein, i.e., petitioner's entitlement to back pay (see, Matter of Ocean v. Selsky, 252 A.D.2d 984, 676 N.Y.S.2d 380; Matter of Donofrio v. City of Rochester, 144 A.D.2d 1027, 1027-1028, 534 N.Y.S.2d 630, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 708, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 538 N.E.2d 355). Nevertheless, we may decide the issue as if it had been properly transferred (see, Matter of Ocean v. Selsky, supra; Matter of Donofrio v. City of Rochester, supra, at 1028, 534 N.Y.S.2d 630). Respondents concede that petitioner is entitled to back pay and benefits up to July 15, 1996, the date of his termination (see, Matter of O'Reilly v. City of White Plains, 92 A.D.2d 920, 921, 460 N.Y.S.2d 816). We therefore modify the determination by directing respondents to pay petitioner back pay and benefits from May 19, 1995 through July 15, 1996, less the 30-day period of his suspension without pay authorized by Civil Service Law § 75(3).
Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 07, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)