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: PHILLIP DRURY, PETITIONER, v. VILLAGE OF NORTH SYRACUSE AND JOHN HEINDORF, MAYOR OF VILLAGE OF NORTH SYRACUSE, RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County [Brian F. DeJoseph, J.], entered February 17, 2010) to review a determination of respondents. The determination terminated petitioner's employment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination terminating his employment as Code Enforcement Officer and Fire Marshall of respondent Village of North Syracuse following a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75. We conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence, i.e., “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180; see CPLR 7803[4]; see generally Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 230-231). We further conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the penalty of termination of employment does not constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law because it is not “ ‘so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness' “ (Matter of Kelly v. Safir, 96 N.Y.2d 32, 38, rearg. denied 96 N.Y.2d 854; see Matter of Smeraldo v. Rater, 55 AD3d 1298, 1299).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: TP 10-00459
Decided: October 01, 2010
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)