Gustafson v. Town of North Castle
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Peterson v. City of Poughkeepsie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Morales-Reyes v. Westchester County Department of Social Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Heisler v. Scappaticci (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Martin v. Board of Trustees (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Ammann v. Odestick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Ward v. Juettner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Cianciulli v. Village of Bronxville Board of Police Commissioners (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The petitioner, an assistant building inspector, was assigned a town vehicle for the purpose of making field inspections in connection with his employment. On the basis of a global positioning system installed in that vehicle which transmitted information to the town’s computer regarding the vehicle’s location and movements, the respondent Town of North Castle, New York (hereinafter the respondent) found that the petitioner, inter alia, falsified town records as to his whereabouts.
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the respondents’ determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436 [1987]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]; Matter of Duda v Board of Educ. of Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 34 AD3d 580 [2006]; Matter of Maher v Cade, 15 AD3d 489 [2005]; Matter of Mann v Town of Monroe, 2 AD3d 527 [2003]; Matter of Whiting v Village of Old Brookville Police Dept., 220 AD2d 600 [1995]), and the penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (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 [1974]; Matter of Maher v Cade, 15 AD3d 489 [2005]; Matter of Lassiter v County of Dutchess, 256 AD2d 578 [1998]; Matter of Whiting v Village of Old Brookville Police Dept., 220 AD2d 600 [1995]). Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.