Matter of Langler v. County of Cayuga

• Decision Date: 30 December 2009
• Docket Number: 1601 TP 09-01267
• Citation: 892 N.Y.S.2d 697,2009 NY Slip Op 9886,68 A.D.3d 1775
• Parties: In the Matter of JAMES LANGLER, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF CAYUGA et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

68 A.D.3d 1775

2009 NY Slip Op 9886

892 N.Y.S.2d 697

In the Matter of JAMES LANGLER, Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF CAYUGA et al., Respondents.

1601 TP 09-01267

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department.

Decided December 30, 2009.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County [William P. Polito, J.], entered July 31, 2008) to annul a determination of respondent County of Cayuga. The determination found petitioner guilty of disciplinary charges and terminated his employment as a lieutenant for the Cayuga County Sheriff's Department.

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously modified on the law and the petition is granted in part by annulling that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of charge III and by vacating the penalty and as modified the determination is confirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to respondent County of Cayuga for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination finding him guilty of disciplinary charges and terminating his employment as a lieutenant for the Cayuga County Sheriff's Department following a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75. We reject petitioner's contention that charge II is time-barred pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 (4). The misconduct set forth in that charge "would, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime," and thus the charge is not subject to the limitations period set forth in section 75 (4) (see Penal Law § 195.00 [1]). We reject petitioner's further contention that the misconduct set forth in charge V does not constitute one or more violations of Civil Service Law § 107. Charge V alleges that the misconduct described in the first four charges violated Civil Service Law § 107, and we conclude that each of those charges sufficiently alleges a violation of section 107 (4).

Judicial review of an administrative determination following a hearing required by law is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803 [4]; Matter of Guerrero v Scoppetta, 53 AD3d 615 [2008]; Matter of D'Alessandro v West Hempstead Fire Dist., 53 AD3d 576, 577 [2008]). Substantial evidence "means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may...