penalty imposed violation in New York

2022Auth. , 2 NY3d 775, 776 ; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist.

2022Under these circumstances, the penalty imposed by the hearing officer, that the petitioners repay the $208,789.45 they had already received, 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" ( Matter of Idahosa v Farmingdale State Coll. , 97 AD3d 580 , 581; see Matter of Kreisler v New York City Tr.

2003Inasmuch as the penalty imposed for this violation included a loss of good time, the matter is remitted for a redetermination of the penalty (see Matter of Vanier v Goord, 284 AD2d 598 [2001]).

2003With regard to the April 4, 2002 determination affirming the finding of guilt as to the initial contraband charge, we need note only that petitioner’s plea of guilty bars any subsequent challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence underlying that determination (see Matter of Goncalves v Goord, 289 AD2d 739 [2001] ) and, in our view, the penalty imposed for this violation was not “so harsh as to shock’s one’s sense of fairness” (Matter of Britt v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 283 AD2d 751, 751 [2001]).

1999No. 13 v Goodman ( 127 AD2d 837 [2d Dept 1987]) for review of a penalty imposed by a hearing panel pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a (5).

1995Because the record does not specify any relation between the penalty imposed and the rule violations, the penalty is vacated and the matter is remitted to respondent Superintendent for imposition of an appropriate penalty on the remaining violations (see, Matter of Brooks v Coughlin, 182 AD2d 1115, 1116 ).

1979The penalty imposed for the violation was not shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 ).

1976Third, as discussed above, similar language with respect to the power of administrative review contained in the Education Law has been interpreted to give the Commissioner of Education a much broader scope of review than that available to courts upon article 78 review (Matter of Board of Educ. v Allen, supra).

1958Lieberman v. Vandecarr, 175 N. Y. 440 ; Village of Herkimer v. Potter, 124 Misc. 57 .) However, the penalty imposed for a violation of an order or resolution of a board of health must comply with a specific governing provision of law and where a State statute limits the penalties to be fixed, the penalty of the order or resolution cannot exceed the statutory limit prescribed. (5 McQuillin on Municipal Corporations [3d ed.], § 17. 14; 37 Am.

1958Lieberman v. Vandecarr, 175 N. Y. 440 ; Village of Herkimer v. Potter, 124 Misc. 57 .) However, the penalty imposed for a violation of an order or resolution of a board of health must comply with a specific governing provision of law and where a State statute limits the penalties to be fixed, the penalty of the order or resolution cannot exceed the statutory limit prescribed. (5 McQuillin on Municipal Corporations [3d ed.], § 17. 14; 37 Am.

1908In the case of Village of Flushing v. Carraher, 87 Hun, 63 , it appeared that the board of health of the village of Flushing, deriving its powers from section 21 of chapter 661 of the Laws of 1893, enacted the following ordinance: “ Ho cow shall be kept within two hundred (200) feet of any dwelling in the village of Flushing without a special permit obtained from the Board of Health.” In an action -to recover a penalty imposed for a violation, it was held the ordinance was invalid; that while, under the powers given to the board by statute, it would have been competent to have promulgated a ge

1904(See, also, Woods v. City of Brooklyn, 14 Barb. 425 .) The law is very correctly stated in Fuller v. Bedding ( 16 Misc.

1904(See, also, Woods v. City of Brooklyn, 14 Barb. 425 .) The law is very correctly stated in Fuller v. Bedding ( 16 Misc.