Little v. New York City Transit Authority
| Decision Date | 22 June 1970 |
| Citation | 312 N.Y.S.2d 574,34 A.D.2d 998 |
| Parties | Maxcie D. LITTLE, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mary B. Tarcher, New York City, for petitioner; Steven M. Bernstein, of counsel.
Sidney Brandes, Brooklyn, for respondent; Helen R. Cassidy, John A. Murray, Brooklyn, of counsel.
Before CHRIST, P.J., and RABIN, HOPKINS, BRENNAN, and MUNDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to annul respondent's determination dated July 29, 1968 which dismissed petitioner from his position of Railroad Clerk in respondent's employ.
Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs.
Following an investigation by several Transit Authority inspectors, petitioner was charged with collecting 20-cent cash fares on five separate dates, from January 3, 1968 to February 13, 1968, both inclusive, and, instead of tendering subway tokens therefor, motioning the intended passenger through the exit gate in lieu of permitting him to use the turnstile. After a hearing petitioner was found guilty as to three of the specified instances of theft and the charge was sustained. The court is unanimous that the evidence was sufficient to sustain that finding and disagrees only with respect to the question whether the punishment was excessive. It is the view of the majority that it was not.
We are authorized to set aside a determination by an administrative agency 'only if the measure of punishment or discipline imposed is so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness' (Matter of Stolz v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of New York, 4 A.D.2d 361, 364, 165 N.Y.S.2d 179, 182). By that test we are of the opinion that the determination of the Authority may not be disturbed. The three proven thefts occurred over a period of weeks, so that, although only 60 cents was involved, what was disclosed was a pattern of dishonest conduct. There must be the severest kind of penalty for such misfeasance to insure honesty in those who handle money where there is no other check than the integrity of the employee.
Although we strongly disapprove of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tannenholz v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
...excuse this flagrant offense. (Cf. Little v. New York City Tr. Auth., 28 N.Y.2d 719, 321 N.Y.S.2d 111, 269 N.E.2d 821, affg. 34 A.D.2d 998, 312 N.Y.S.2d 574; Matter of Mansfield v. Murphy, 16 N.Y.2d 986, 265 N.Y.S.2d 297, 212 N.E.2d 781.) This is so because the conduct involved in the insta......
-
Leary v. Local 1968, I.B.E.W. AFL-CIO
... ... Bernard Ulano, New York City, for respondent-appellant ... Before ... ...
-
McDonald v. Department of Mental Hygiene
... ... DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HYGIENE of the State of New York and ... Hyman S. Barahal, M.D., individually and as Acting ... Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., State of New York, New York City, for respondents; Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty ... ...
-
Little v. New York City Transit Authority
...Respondent. Court of Appeals of New York. April 7, 1971. Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 34 A.D.2d 998, 312 N.Y.S.2d 574. Eli Ratner, New York City (Stanley Stein, New York City, of counsel), for Albert B. Lewis, New York City, and Leon R. Port, Brookly......