Donnelly v. Carmel Cent. School Dist.
| Decision Date | 11 March 1985 |
| Citation | 486 N.Y.S.2d 308,109 A.D.2d 796 |
| Parties | , 23 Ed. Law Rep. 995 In the Matter of Robert DONNELLY, Petitioner, v. The CARMEL CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
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; 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 evidence of his innocence of the particular charge preferred. We cannot say, as a matter of law, that the hearing officer erred in making that determination.
Petitioner was not deprived of due process when the board of education reversed the hearing officer's determination as to two of the twelve charges involved (which two charges were essentially cumulative) and, without making new findings of fact, followed the hearing officer's recommendation and terminated petitioner's employment.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welcher v. Sobol
...to be given to polygraph results lies solely within the discretion of the administrative tribunal (see, Donnelly v. Carmel Cent. School Dist., 109 A.D.2d 796, 486 N.Y.S.2d 308), we find no basis to disturb the determination rendered. Even acknowledging the extensive evidence proffered by pe......
-
Schuster v. Babylon Union Free School Dist.
...1025, 1026, 239 N.Y.S.2d 48; see also, Matter of David v. Christian, 134 A.D.2d 349, 520 N.Y.S.2d 826; Matter of Donnelly v. Carmel Cent. School Dist., 109 A.D.2d 796, 486 N.Y.S.2d 308). We find that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the hearing officer's finding of fa......
-
David v. Christian
...issue of credibility, is supported by substantial evidence, and will therefore not be disturbed (see, Matter of Donnelly v. Carmel Cent. School Dist., 109 A.D.2d 796, 486 N.Y.S.2d 308; Matter of Wiener v. Gabel, 18 A.D.2d 1025, 239 N.Y.S.2d 48). The hearing officer, after weighing all of th......
-
Weaver v. Board of Educ. of Pine Plains Central School Dist.
...determination (see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321; Matter of Donnelly v. Carmel Cent. School Dist., 109 A.D.2d 796, 486 N.Y.S.2d 308). Moreover, we do not find the imposition of the penalty of dismissal to be so shocking under the existing......