Gibson v. Board of Ed. of Norwood-Norfolk Central School
| Decision Date | 03 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | NORWOOD-NORFOLK,RWOOD-NORFOLK |
| Citation | 399 N.Y.S.2d 296,59 A.D.2d 963 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Lyndon GIBSON, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF theCENTRAL SCHOOL, Roscoe Bowhall, President, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William F. Maginn, Jr., Massena, for petitioner.
Lee H. Turner, Norwood (William F. Roberts, Jr., Norwood, of counsel), for respondent.
Before KANE, J. P., and LARKIN and HERLIHY, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 () to review a determination of the respondent which dismissed the petitioner from his job pursuant to section 75 of the Civil Service Law.
The record establishes that when the respondent terminated the petitioner from his employment, he had already obtained permanent civil service status as a janitor and could not be removed without complying with the procedures of section 75 of the Civil Service Law. Accordingly, the respondent could only suspend the petitioner for 30 days without pay and upon a dismissal following a hearing he was entitled to salary until the final determination was made (Matter of Yeampierre v. Gutman, 52 A.D.2d 608, 382 N.Y.S.2d 104; Matter of Lytle v. Christian, 47 A.D.2d 824, 365 N.Y.S.2d 865). Upon this record the respondent erred in attempting to deny salary to the petitioner for a period beyond 30 days.
The findings of the respondent that the petitioner had engaged in the conduct specified in the charges are supported by the testimony at the hearing held herein. Upon review, there is substantial evidence that the petitioner was incompetent in the performance of his duties.
Determination modified by directing that the respondent pay the salary of petitioner from January 31, 1976 to August 10, 1976 except for the 30-day period immediately following June 11, 1976 subject to the provisions of section 77 of the Civil Service Law, and, as so modified, confirmed, with costs to petitioner.
The record in this case does not establish by substantial proof that the petitioner did not do the work required of him or that he performed the work in an incompetent manner. The record, at best, indicates that on one, two, or perhaps three occasions over a period of almost two years the petitioner had not performed his work in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sinicropi v. Bennett
...N.Y.S.2d 466; Matter of Burrison v. New York City Tr. Auth., 60 A.D.2d 651, 400 N.Y.S.2d 364; Matter of Gibson v. Board of Educ. of Norwood-Norfolk Cent. School, 59 A.D.2d 963, 399 N.Y.S.2d 296, affd. 45 N.Y.2d 884, 410 N.Y.S.2d 811, 383 N.E.2d 113; Cassidy v. Police Dept., County of Nassau......
-
Weatherlow v. Board of Educ. of Jamestown City School Dist.
...evidence of some dereliction or neglect of duty (see, Matter of Griffin v. Thompson, supra, at 110, 95 N.E. 7; Matter of Gibson v. Board of Educ., 59 A.D.2d 963, 399 N.Y.S.2d 296, affd 45 N.Y.2d 884, 410 N.Y.S.2d 811, 383 N.E.2d 113; Matter of Bollin v. City of Kingston, 89 A.D.2d 658, 453 ......
- Gibson v. Board of Education of the Norwood Norfolk Central School, RWOOD-NORFOLK
- Gibson v. Board of Education of the Norwood Norfolk Central School