Opinion
2012-07-25
In the Matter of Siabhain SNEAD, appellant, v. VILLAGE OF SPRING VALLEY, respondent.
O'Neil & Burke, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (William T. Burke of counsel), for appellant. Kevin T. Conway, Village Attorney, Spring Valley, N.Y., for respondent.
O'Neil & Burke, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (William T. Burke of counsel), for appellant. Kevin T. Conway, Village Attorney, Spring Valley, N.Y., for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Village of Spring Valley Justice Court, which adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer dated May 19, 2010, made after a hearing, finding that the disciplinary charges against the petitioner were supported by the evidence, and terminated her employment, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Alfieri, Jr., J.), dated March 15, 2011, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, and the judgment is vacated; and it is further,
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.
“Since the petition raises the question of whether the challenged determination is supported by substantial evidence, the Supreme Court should have transferred the proceeding to this Court” (Matter of Blake v. New York City Hous. Auth., 78 A.D.3d 1175, 1175, 911 N.Y.S.2d 659;seeCPLR 7804[g] ). Nevertheless, the record is now before this Court, and in the interest of judicial economy, we will treat the matter as one initially transferred here and will review the administrative determination de novo.
The determination that the petitioner, a Data Entry Clerk in the Justice Court of the Village of Spring Valley, committed misconduct, falsification of public records, and insubordination, was supported by substantial evidence adduced at the administrative hearing ( see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179–180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183;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, 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321;Matter of Rabidou v. County of Dutchess, 94 A.D.3d 1004, 942 N.Y.S.2d 365;Matter of Smith v. Carter, 61 A.D.3d 982, 983, 876 N.Y.S.2d 903;Matter of Maher v. Cade, 15 A.D.3d 489, 790 N.Y.S.2d 499). Furthermore, in light of the charges and the petitioner's employment duties, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be “shocking to one's sense of fairness,” thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (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 at 233, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Nabors v. Town of Somers, 72 A.D.3d 769, 773–774, 900 N.Y.S.2d 92;Matter of Smith v. Carter, 61 A.D.3d at 983, 876 N.Y.S.2d 903;Matter of Maher v. Cade, 15 A.D.3d at 490, 790 N.Y.S.2d 499).