Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Marentette v. City of Canandaiguagreen2 sentences2025"It is well established that substantial evidence is generally the applicable evidentiary standard for disciplinary matters involving public employees under Civil Service Law § 75" ( Matter of Marentette v City of Canandaigua , 159 AD3d 1410 , 1411 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 912 [2018]). 2025"It is well established that substantial evidence is generally the applicable evidentiary standard for disciplinary matters involving public employees under Civil Service Law § 75" ( Matter of Marentette v City of Canandaigua , 159 AD3d 1410, 1411 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 912 [2018]). | 1 | 2 |
MATTER OF MILLER v. DeBuonogreen1 sentence2018It is well established that substantial evidence is generally the applicable evidentiary standard for disciplinary matters involving public employees under Civil Service Law § 75, and that due process requires application of the preponderance of the evidence standard only "when the penalty of dismissal is accompanied by some added stigma" ( Matter of Suitor v Keller , 256 AD2d 1140, 1140 [4th Dept 1998]; see Matter of Miller v DeBuono , 90 NY2d 783, 794 [1997]; Matter of Field v Board of Educ., Yonkers Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Suitor v. Kellergreen1 sentence2018It is well established that substantial evidence is generally the applicable evidentiary standard for disciplinary matters involving public employees under Civil Service Law § 75, and that due process requires application of the preponderance of the evidence standard only "when the penalty of dismissal is accompanied by some added stigma" ( Matter of Suitor v Keller , 256 AD2d 1140, 1140 [4th Dept 1998]; see Matter of Miller v DeBuono , 90 NY2d 783, 794 [1997]; Matter of Field v Board of Educ., Yonkers Pub. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cohen v. Koehler
green
1 sentence2006Thus, in the absence of a showing of an improper reason or bad faith, not only was the reassignment warranted (see Matter of Cohen v Koehler, 82 NY2d 882 [1993]), but his demotion could not be considered a punishment under section 75. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Strokes v. City of Albany
green
1 sentence1991Center, 143 AD2d 426 ; Matter of Strokes v City of Albany, 101 AD2d 944 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
O'Malley v. Nassau County Medical Center
neutral
1 sentence1991Center, 143 AD2d 426 ; Matter of Strokes v City of Albany, 101 AD2d 944 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.