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.
IN RE: John MONAHAN, Petitioner, v. John J. DOHERTY, as Commissioner, New York City Department of Sanitation, Respondent.
Determination of respondent, dated November 16, 2004, which found petitioner guilty of specified misconduct and dismissed him from service, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the article 78 proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Nicholas Figueroa, J.], entered August 3, 2005) dismissed, without costs.
The determination was supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193 [1987]; see also People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 495 N.Y.S.2d 332, 485 N.E.2d 997 [1985] ) that petitioner was guilty of misconduct when he negligently operated a department truck, violated sick leave and lateness regulations, and was insubordinate to a supervisor (see Matter of Wallace v. Department of Sanitation of City of N.Y., 303 A.D.2d 295, 756 N.Y.S.2d 571 [2003] ). The Administrative Law Judge properly rejected petitioner's various excuses and explanations. The penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate to the offenses and does not shock the conscience (see Matter of Kelly v. Safir, 96 N.Y.2d 32, 39-40, 724 N.Y.S.2d 680, 747 N.E.2d 1280 [2001] ), particularly in view of petitioner's disciplinary record, which included several prior suspensions (see Matter of Cantres v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 30 A.D.3d 164, 816 N.Y.S.2d 57 [2006] ).
We have considered and rejected petitioner's remaining arguments.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 21, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)