Opinion
No. 124 SSM 11.
Decided June 7, 2007.
APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered October 13, 2006. The Supreme Court awarded petitioner back wages and pension contributions. The appeal brings up for review a prior nonfinal order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered August 18, 2005, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division by order of the Supreme Court, entered in New York County). The Appellate Division had annulled a determination of respondent Port Authority of New York and New Jersey dismissing petitioner from his position as a Port Authority employee, granted the petition, reinstated petitioner and remanded to Supreme Court for the determination of an award for lost wages, benefits and all emoluments of his employment from the date of separation to the date of reinstatement.
Matter of Mapp v. Burnham, 23 AD3d 37, reversed.
Milton H. Pachter, General Counsel, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York City ( Joan F. Bennett, Carlene McIntyre and Anne M. Tannenbaum of counsel), for appellants.
Traub Traub, P.C., New York City ( Doris G. Traub of counsel), for respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed. The determination of respondent Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the PA) terminating petitioner's employment is supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 230). Evidence in the record supports the finding that petitioner misled the American Red Cross concerning his employment status and obtained financial assistance under false pretenses. Moreover, in light of petitioner's misconduct, "we cannot conclude that the penalty of dismissal imposed . . . shocks the judicial conscience" ( Matter of Rutkunas v Stout, 8 NY3d 897, 898 [internal citations and quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Scahill v Greece Cent. School Dist., 2 NY3d 754, 756; Matter of Pell, 34 NY2d at 233).
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, etc.