Vargas v. Kelly
Opinion of the Court
Determination of respondent Commissioner, dated September
Substantial evidence (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]), including documentary submissions and testimony by a parole officer and an Internal Affairs investigator, supports respondents’ findings that petitioner is guilty of specified misconduct, including accepting money from automotive and medical service providers for recommending them to automobile accident victims and engaging in unauthorized employment.
The penalty imposed is not, in light of the proven misconduct, shocking to our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 39-40 [2001]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.