findings hearing in New York

1985Based upon the evidence adduced in this full and fair hearing, in which the petitioner was represented by counsel and received every opportunity to present his side of the events, the respondent NYCHA presented substantial evidence to support the findings of the hearing officer, and his recommendation of termination of tenancy does not shock the conscience (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 [1974]).

1978The findings of the hearing officer are not inconsistent with a reading of the regulations in question nor is the suspension harsh or excessive (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 ).

1992Stephen S., supra; Leistner v Leistner, 137 AD2d 499 ), and we would be seriously remiss if, simply in deference to the findings of the hearing Judge, we allowed a custody determination to stand where, as here, it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (Matter of Gloria S. v Richard B., 80 AD2d 72, 76 ; see also, Skolnick v Skolnick, supra).

1989Although the findings of the hearing court in respect to the modification of child custody are to be accorded great respect (see, e.g., Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 , supra), "[a]n appellate court would be seriously remiss if, simply in deference to the finding of a Trial Judge, it allowed a custody determination to stand where it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Gloria S. v Richard B., 80 AD2d 72, 76 ; Skolnick v Skolnick, 142 AD2d 570 ).

1990The numerous inconsistencies in the hearing testimony notwithstanding, and giving due deference to the findings of the hearing court (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 588 , cert denied 400 US 851 ; People v Armstead, 98 AD2d 726 ), we conclude from our consideration of the undisputed facts that defendant’s detention was custodial in nature.

1989The findings of the hearing court are entitled to great deference and should not be set aside unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 , cert denied 400 US 851 ; People v Hayes, 127 AD2d 607 ; People v Armstead, 98 AD2d 726 ).

2008“While great weight must be accorded the findings of the hearing court (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 [1977]), a reviewing court should not ‘discard common sense and common knowledge’ in assessing credibility (Matter of Carl W., 174 AD2d 678, 679 ; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ).

1995Deference to the findings of the hearing court then goes only so far and does not require slavish adherence to findings at variance with common sense and common knowledge (People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 ; People v Miret-Gonzalez, 159 AD2d 647, 649 , lv denied 76 NY2d 739 ; Matter of Carl W., 174 AD2d 678, 679 ).

2001Since the findings of the hearing court were not clearly erroneous, they must be upheld (see, People v Bucknor, supra; People v Armstead, supra).

1990The numerous inconsistencies in the hearing testimony notwithstanding, and giving due deference to the findings of the hearing court (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 588 , cert denied 400 US 851 ; People v Armstead, 98 AD2d 726 ), we conclude from our consideration of the undisputed facts that defendant’s detention was custodial in nature.

1990Where, as here, there has been a full evidentiary hearing, the findings of the hearing court are to be accorded great weight, and will not be lightly set aside (see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 ).

1989Furthermore, where there has been a full evidentiary hearing, the findings of the hearing court are to be afforded great weight and are not lightly to be set aside (Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, supra).

1974In such a case, the findings of the hearing officer as trier of the fact should be given the greatest weight (Matter of Kelly v. Murphy, 20 N Y 2d 205, 209-210; Matter of 54 Cafe & Rest. v. O’Connell, 274 App. Div. 428, 430 , affd. 298 N. Y. 883 ); cf. Amend v. Hurley, 293 N. Y. 587, 594 ; Kelly v. Watson Elevator Co., 309 N. Y. 49, 51 ). .Concur — Markewich, J.

1969There is nothing in the record to indicate any reason for reversing the determination of the hearing commissioner. “ The findings of the hearing officer, involving as they did primarily questions of credibility, were entitled to considerable weight (Matter of Kelly v. Murphy, 20 N Y 2d 205; Matter of 54 Cafe & Rest. v. O’Connell, 274 App. Div. 428, 430 , affd. 298 N. Y. 883 ).” (Matter of Rochdale Mall Wines & Liqs. v. State Liq.

1974In such a case, the findings of the hearing officer as trier of the fact should be given the greatest weight (Matter of Kelly v. Murphy, 20 N Y 2d 205, 209-210; Matter of 54 Cafe & Rest. v. O’Connell, 274 App. Div. 428, 430 , affd. 298 N. Y. 883 ); cf. Amend v. Hurley, 293 N. Y. 587, 594 ; Kelly v. Watson Elevator Co., 309 N. Y. 49, 51 ). .Concur — Markewich, J.

1969There is nothing in the record to indicate any reason for reversing the determination of the hearing commissioner. “ The findings of the hearing officer, involving as they did primarily questions of credibility, were entitled to considerable weight (Matter of Kelly v. Murphy, 20 N Y 2d 205; Matter of 54 Cafe & Rest. v. O’Connell, 274 App. Div. 428, 430 , affd. 298 N. Y. 883 ).” (Matter of Rochdale Mall Wines & Liqs. v. State Liq.

2025Thereafter, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the respondents' determination, and the Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g). "'In employee disciplinary cases, judicial review of factual findings made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 is limited to consideration of whether that determination was supported by substantial evidence'" ( Matter of Scott v Westchester County , 204 AD3d 807, 808 , quoting Matter of Cupo v Uniondale Fire Dist. , 181 AD3d 594, 595 ). "'Substantial evidence means such

2024The petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review DSS's determination, and the Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g). "'In employee disciplinary cases, judicial review of factual findings made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 is limited to consideration of whether that determination was supported by substantial evidence'" ( Matter of Scott v Westchester County , 204 AD3d 807, 808 , quoting Matter of Cupo v Uniondale Fire Dist. , 181 AD3d 594, 595 ).

2025Thereafter, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the respondents' determination, and the Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g). "'In employee disciplinary cases, judicial review of factual findings made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 is limited to consideration of whether that determination was supported by substantial evidence'" ( Matter of Scott v Westchester County , 204 AD3d 807, 808 , quoting Matter of Cupo v Uniondale Fire Dist. , 181 AD3d 594, 595 ). "'Substantial evidence means such

2024The petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review DSS's determination, and the Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g). "'In employee disciplinary cases, judicial review of factual findings made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 is limited to consideration of whether that determination was supported by substantial evidence'" ( Matter of Scott v Westchester County , 204 AD3d 807, 808 , quoting Matter of Cupo v Uniondale Fire Dist. , 181 AD3d 594, 595 ).

1999Therefore, the fraudulent Department of Social Services benefits card recovered from the defendant’s person was properly admissible into evidence at trial (see, People v Brenfield, supra; People v Brown, 173 AD2d 629 ).

1998Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the findings of the hearing court are supported by the record which demonstrated that probable cause existed for the defendant’s arrest (see, People v Brenfield, 188 AD2d 477, 478 , citing People v Brown, 173 AD2d 629 ; People v Graves, 163 AD2d 487 ).

1999Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the findings of the hearing court are supported by the record, which demonstrates that probable cause existed for his arrest (see, People v Brenfield, 188 AD2d 477 , citing People v Ward, 175 AD2d 819 ).

1992Here, the findings of the hearing court are supported by the record which demonstrates that probable cause existed for the defendant’s arrest (see, People v Ward, 175 AD2d 819).

1995In a paternity proceeding, the findings of a hearing court are entitled to great weight and, generally, should not be disturbed on appeal unless they are found to be contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, Matter of Everlyn T. v Willis Charles T., 155 AD2d 546 ).

1994In a paternity proceeding, the findings of a hearing court are entitled to great weight, and, generally, should not be disturbed on appeal unless they are found to be contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, Matter of Everlyn T. v Willis Charles T, 155 AD2d 546 ).

1993Furthermore, it is well established that the findings of a hearing court in a paternity proceeding are entitled to great weight and, generally, should not be disturbed on appeal unless they are found to be contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, Matter of Sherry G. v George F., 183 AD2d 825 ; Matter of Shirley R. v Ricardo B., 144 AD2d 472, 473 ).

1992It is well settled that the findings of a hearing court in a paternity proceeding are entitled to great weight and, generally, should not be disturbed on appeal unless they are found to be contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, Matter of Shirley R. v Ricardo B., 144 AD2d 472, 473 ).

1989The findings of the hearing court are entitled to great deference and should not be set aside unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 , cert denied 400 US 851 ; People v Hayes, 127 AD2d 607 ; People v Armstead, 98 AD2d 726 ).

1989It is well established that the findings of a hearing court are to be accorded great deference and should not be set aside absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 ; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 , cert denied 400 US 851 ; People v Hayes, 127 AD2d 607 ).

2015Children, 276 AD2d 485, 486-487 [2000]; Matter of Erich J., 22 AD3d 849 , 850 [2005]).

2009“Where a determination depends upon the assessment of the credibility of witnesses, the findings of the hearing court are entitled to great weight” (Matter of Erich J., 22 AD3d 849 [2005]).

1999Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the findings of the hearing court are supported by the record, which demonstrates that probable cause existed for his arrest (see, People v Brenfield, 188 AD2d 477 , citing People v Ward, 175 AD2d 819 ).

1998Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the findings of the hearing court are supported by the record which demonstrated that probable cause existed for the defendant’s arrest (see, People v Brenfield, 188 AD2d 477, 478 , citing People v Brown, 173 AD2d 629 ; People v Graves, 163 AD2d 487 ).

1996There is no merit to the contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. "[T]he evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [the] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 ; see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184).

1992Under the standards set forth in People v Rivera ( 71 NY2d 705, 708-709 ) and People v Baldi ( 54 NY2d 137, 146 ), we find no. basis to conclude that defendant was denied meaningful representation at trial.

1993Nevertheless, "[a]n appellate court would be seriously remiss if, simply in deference to the finding of a Trial Judge, it allowed a custody determination to stand where it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Gloria S. v Richard B., 80 AD2d 72, 76 ; see also, Matter of Krebsbach v Gallagher, supra; Klat v Klat, 176 AD2d 922, 923 ).

1992Therefore, since the hearing court is in the most advantageous position to evaluate the witnesses’ testimony, the findings of the hearing court are generally accorded great respect on appeal (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, supra; Klat v Klat, supra; Matter of Robert T.