Opinion
March 30, 1992
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
The determination under review, which turned on the issue of credibility, is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, Matter of David v Christian, 134 A.D.2d 349; Matter of Donnelly v Carmel Cent. School Dist., 109 A.D.2d 796). The petitioner claims that she was deprived of due process because the charges leveled against her were not pleaded with sufficient specificity. However, although she was informed that she could request a bill of particulars she failed to do so. Moreover, she did not request any additional time to prepare a defense, nor did she at any time prior to or during the hearing make a request for greater specificity. Accordingly, we conclude that the petitioner waived any claim regarding the deprivation of her due process rights (see, Matter of David v Christian, supra; Matter of Multari v Town of Stony Point, 99 A.D.2d 838).
The petitioner's contention that the penalty of a 33-day suspension without pay was harsh and excessive is without merit (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233).
We have reviewed the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.