Ansbro v. McGuire
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Kelly v. Safir (N.Y. 2001)
- Krute v. Kelly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Nyat Operating Corp. v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Nyat Operating Corp. v. New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Harp v. New York City Police Department (N.Y. 2001)
- Giordano v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Fludd v. Sielaff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- Close v. Hammond (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Muidallap Corp. v. State Liquor Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Sheehan v. Passidomo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Papadakis v. Brezenoff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Raimondi v. Waterfront Commission (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- Pilawa v. City of Utica (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
- D'Ambrosio v. Waterfront Commission (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
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
Memorandum.
The order appealed from should be reversed, with costs, and the determination of respondent police commissioner should be reinstated. In light of the determination made by the commissioner, which we find to be supported by substantial evidence, that petitioner did on many occasions knowingly apply for and obtain overtime payments to which he was not entitled, the Appellate Division erred in disturbing the sanction of dismissal imposed by the commissioner. It is well settled that an administrative sanction is not to be set aside as excessive unless it is so "clearly disproportionate to the offense and completely inequitable in light of the surrounding circumstances” (Kostika v Cuomo, 41 NY2d 673, 676) as to be " 'shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ ” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233; accord Schaubman v Blum, 49 NY2d 375). In view of the extent and nature of petitioner’s purposive and knowing misconduct, it cannot be said that the sanction imposed by the commissioner was excessive under this standard.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.