ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Courts have a limited authority in modifying a disciplinary penalty imposed by the appointing authority

ADVERTISEMENTS

Courts have a limited authority in modifying a disciplinary penalty imposed by the appointing authority

Matter of Mary Ellis v Mahon, 2008 NY Slip Op 06737, Decided on September 9, 2008, Court of Appeals

In Ellis v Mahon, 49 AD2d 538, the Appellate Division the annulled the disciplinary penalty imposed on Mary Ellis ? dismissal ? and remanded the matter to the appointing authority ?for the imposition of an appropriate penalty less severe than either termination or suspension of [Ellis?] employment.? Ellis had been found guilty of incompetence.

The Appellate Division found that ?The evidence did not establish, nor does the [appointing authority] suggest, that [Ellis?] conduct was motivated by any malice or selfishness, or that it resulted in any "grave injury to the agency involved or to the public weal."

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division?s determination, commenting that Ellis, who was employed as an eligibility examiner tasked with processing food stamp applications, consistently processed such applications in particularly late fashion, even after multiple warnings concerning her poor performance. Thus, said the court, ?we cannot conclude that the penalty of termination shocks the judicial conscience,? citing Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222.

The Court of Appeals then reiterated its view that ?the Appellate Division has no discretionary authority or interest of justice jurisdiction in this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the penalty imposed by the appointing authority.? The Court cited Torrance v Stout, 9 NY3d 1022, a case involving the willful and intentional illegal disposition of county property, and Rutkanas v Stout, 8 NY3d 897, a case involving conduct that was found to have jeopardized the health and safety of his coworkers and of the public patrons of the facility at which he worked, in support of its view in this regard.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on September 11, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0126 secs (new cache)