109 A.D.2d 796, Donnelly v. Carmel Cent. School Dist.

Citation:109 A.D.2d 796, 486 N.Y.S.2d 308
Party Name:Donnelly v. Carmel Cent. School Dist.
Case Date:March 11, 1985
Court:New York Supreme Court Appelate Division, Second Department
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 796

109 A.D.2d 796

486 N.Y.S.2d 308

In the Matter of Robert DONNELLY, Petitioner,

v.

The CARMEL CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

March 11, 1985.

Grae & Rose, White Plains (Arthur H. Grae and James M. Rose, White Plains, of counsel), for petitioner.

Raymond G. Kuntz, P.C., Bedford Village (Andrea S. Mutchler, Newburgh, of counsel), for respondents.

Before MANGANO, J.P., and GIBBONS, BRACKEN and NIEHOFF, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Education, Carmel Central School District, dated October 17, 1983, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of certain charges and terminated his employment.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The hearing officer's determination, which turned on the issue of credibility, was supported by substantial evidence, and will, therefore, not be disturbed (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321; [486 N.Y.S.2d 309] Matter of Wiener v. Gabel, 18 A.D.2d 1025, 239 N.Y.S.2d 48). The hearing officer gave little probative value to polygraph results because he concluded that the questions were posed in such a contrived way that petitioner's answers could register as truthful and yet that truthful answers would not necessarily be...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP