9 N.Y.3d at 1023 Lack of discretionary authority to review agency penalty12 citing cases“has no discretionary authority or interest of justice jurisdiction”
- Matter of P & I Prop., LLC v. Comm'r, State of N.Y., Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal (DHCR), 2024 NY Slip Op 33255(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublishedThis standard of review is a “rigorous” one, and it is well settled that the “court lacks any discretionary authority or interest of justice jurisdiction in reviewing the penalty” (Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d at 554 ; see Matt…
- Smith v. Tuckahoe Hous. Auth., 111 A.D.3d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published In other words, this Court “has no discretionary authority or interest of justice jurisdiction” to review the penalty imposed by the agency (Matter of Torrance v Stout, 9 NY3d 1022, 1023 [2008]).
- Idahosa v. Farmingdale State Coll., 97 A.D.3d 580 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published An administrative penalty must be upheld unless it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see Matter of Ellis v Mahon, 11 NY3d 754, 7…
- Rabidou v. Cnty. of Dutchess, 94 A.D.3d 1004 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).publishedFurthermore, the penalty of termination was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see Matter of Ellis v Mahon, 11 NY3d 754 [2008];…
- in Matter of Florence Huth v. John Barr, 56 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).publishedNo. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d at 240; see also Matter of Ellis v Mahon, 11 NY3d 754 [2008]; Matter of Torrance v Stout, 9 NY3d 1022, 1023 [2008]).
- Thomas v. Cnty. of Rockland, 55 A.D.3d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).publishedNo. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d at 240; see also Matter of Ellis v Mahon,11 NY3d 754 [2008]; Matter of Torrance v Stout, 9 NY3d 1022, 1023 [2008]).
- Matter of Ellis v. Mahon, 895 N.E.2d 518 (N.Y. 2008).publishedWe reiterate 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 respondent Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of…
- Chiara v. Wells, 61 A.D.3d 973 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).publishedNo. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222 , 237 [1974]; see Matter of Torrance v Stout, 9 NY3d 1022, 1023 [2008]; Matter of Thomas v County of Rockland, Dept. of Hosps., 55 AD3d 745, 746 [2008]).
- Kurot v. East Rock-Away Fire Dep't, 61 A.D.3d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).publishedNo. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222 , 237 [1974]; see Matter of Torrance v Stout, 9 NY3d 1022, 1023 [2008]; Matter of Rutkunas v Stout, 8 NY3d 897, 899 [2007]; Matter of Thomas v County of Rockland, De…
- Smith v. Carter, 61 A.D.3d 982 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009).publishedNo. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222 , 237 [1974]; see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]; see also Matter of Torrance v Stout, 9 NY3d 1022, 1023 [2008]; Matter of McLean v City of Albany, 1…
v.
Joseph A. Stout, as Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The judgment of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed in its entirety.
Petitioner, employed in a supervisory capacity, engaged in the willful and intentional illegal disposition of county property. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the penalty of demotion to a nonsupervisory position shocks the judicial conscience (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, 233-234 [1974]). We reiterate 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 respondent Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation (see Matter of Rutkunas v Stout, 8 NY3d 897, 899 [2007]).
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, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.