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: Jerry CESTARE, petitioner, v. TOWN OF ISLIP, et al., respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Islip dated February 10, 2005, which adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer dated February 1, 2005, made after a hearing, finding the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminating his employment as a Park Ranger II with the Town of Islip Department of Code Enforcement.
ADJUDGED that the petition is granted, on the law, with costs, the determination is annulled, the charge is dismissed, the petitioner is reinstated to his position as a Park Ranger II with the Town of Islip Department of Code Enforcement, and the matter is remitted to the respondents for the calculation of back pay and benefits owed to the petitioner.
The petitioner was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 alleging that he “engaged in misconduct by accepting salary payments from the Town [of Islip] to which he was not entitled.” Following a hearing, the Deputy Commissioner of the Town of Islip, Department of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Affairs, upon designation by the Commissioner of the Department of Code Enforcement, adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer, found the petitioner guilty of misconduct, and terminated his employment. The petitioner contends, inter alia, that the record lacked substantial evidence to support this determination. We agree.
Under the facts of this case, the determination that the petitioner engaged in misconduct was not supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 181-82, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183; Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321; Hofsiss v. Board of Educ. of Mamaroneck Union Free School Dist., 287 A.D.2d 566, 569, 732 N.Y.S.2d 14).
In light of the foregoing, we need not consider the petitioner's remaining contentions.
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, Second 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)