Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cherry v. Horn

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


October 22, 2009

IN RE BERNARD CHERRY, PETITONER,
v.
MARTIN HORN, CORRECTION COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Determination of respondent Commissioner, dated March 22, 2007, dismissing petitioner from his position as a correction officer, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Lottie E. Wilkins, J.], entered January 23, 2008), dismissed, without costs.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Renwick, Richter, JJ

109938/07

The findings that petitioner failed to effectively perform his duties in 2004 and 2005 due to excessive absenteeism and the excessive use of sick leave, and engaged in insubordinate conduct unbecoming of an officer in 2004 and 2006 by refusing to comply with numerous orders from superior officers, are supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave Assoc. v State Div of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]; see Matter of Tatum v Horn, 37 AD3d 285 [2007]), and we find no basis to disturb the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 444 [1987]).

We decline to consider petitioner's argument that respondent Department of Correction violated procedure by not providing a memorandum of complaint prior to issuing certain specifications and charges against him, as he failed to raise this issue in either his original or amended petition (see Matter of Cocozzo v Ward, 162 AD2d 202, 203 [1990]).

In light of the nature of petitioner's conduct, we find that the penalty imposed is not shocking to our sense of fairness (see Matter of Van Osten v Horn, 37 AD3d 317 [2007]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20091022

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.