Principe v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

Full title: In the Matter of Peter PRINCIPE, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT…

Court: Court of Appeals of New York.

Date published: Dec 13, 2012

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8568 (N.Y. 2012)

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8568

958 N.Y.S.2d 325

982 N.E.2d 88

Opinion

2012-12-13

In the Matter of Peter PRINCIPE, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Julian L. Kalkstein of counsel), for appellant. Lichten & Bright, PC, New York City (Stuart Lichten of counsel), for respondent.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Julian L. Kalkstein of counsel), for appellant. Lichten & Bright, PC, New York City (Stuart Lichten of counsel), for respondent.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative. The Appellate Division correctly determined that the penalty of termination imposed on petitioner was excessive in light of all the circumstances ( see 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, 233, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] ).

Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ and PIGOTT concur. Judge SMITH dissents **326and votes to reverse for the reason that it cannot be concluded, as a matter of law, that the penalty of termination shocks the judicial conscience ( see 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, 233, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] ).