Wind v. Ravo

Decision Date23 April 1979
PartiesGregory WIND, Petitioner, v. Pat RAVO, City Manager of Yonkers, et al., Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Wekstein & Fulfree, Bronxville (Richard W. Fulfree, Bronxville, of counsel), for petitioner.

Eugene J. Fox, Corp. Counsel, Yonkers (Howard M. Schupak, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Yonkers, of counsel), for respondents.

Before SUOZZI, J. P., and LAZER, RABIN and COHALAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent City manager of the City of Yonkers, dated June 14, 1978, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of certain specifications of misconduct and insubordination and demoted him from the position of Water Maintenance Supervisor to Working Supervisor.

Petition granted to the extent that the determination is annulled, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted for a De novo determination by the head of the Yonkers Department of Public Works based on the original hearing record, or by such other official or officials of the City of Yonkers who can be properly designated to make such a determination in the absence or inability of the City Manager to act.

Petitioner was charged with and found guilty of several specifications of misconduct arising out of an alleged unauthorized and improperly executed repair job on a water leak which he supervised on December 18, 1976.

At the time of the hearing which was held on these charges, the respondent Ravo, who is presently the City Manager of the City of Yonkers, was the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works of the City of Yonkers. In that capacity he brought the charges against petitioner and was a witness against petitioner at the hearing.

After the hearing, the trial examiner found petitioner guilty of four specifications of misconduct and recommended a fine of $100. Thereafter, the respondent Ravo was appointed City Manager. In that capacity he was to make the final determination as to the issue of petitioner's guilt and punishment. Ravo confirmed that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the trial examiner's findings of guilt on four specifications, but increased the punishment by demoting petitioner from Water Maintenance Supervisor to Working Supervisor.

It is our view that as a matter of propriety and because of his personal involvement, the City Manager should have disqualified himself from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Sinicropi v. Bennett
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 21 Marzo 1983
    ...or her former position with back pay until such time as a new determination may be rendered which again punishes the employee (cf. Wind v. Ravo, 69 A.D.2d 879 ; Wind v. Green, 78 A.D.2d 695 ; Matter of Romeo v. Union Free School Dist., No. 3, Town of Islip, 64 A.D.2d 664 )." (See, also, Mat......
  • Pelaez v. Waterfront Com'n of New York Harbor
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 13 Septiembre 1982
    ... ... Milone, 80 A.D.2d 609, 436 N.Y.S.2d 48; Matter of O'Reilly v. Pisani, 79 A.D.2d 973, 436 N.Y.S.2d 793; Wind v. Ravo, 69 A.D.2d ... 879, 415 N.Y.S.2d 688; Matter of Aiello v. Tempera, 65 A.D.2d 791, 410 N.Y.S.2d 315; Matter of Waters v. McGinnis, 29 ... ...
  • Ortiz v. Lesser
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 2 Julio 1981
    ...Sander v. Owens, 82 A.D.2d 968, 440 N.Y.S.2d 489 Matter of Martin v. Bates, 65 A.D.2d 818, 410 N.Y.S.2d 350; see, also, Wind v. Ravo, 69 A.D.2d 879, 415 N.Y.S.2d 688). Next, the commissioner, as the officer charged with the responsibility of reviewing the hearing record, should not have sha......
  • Wind v. Green
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 27 Octubre 1980
    ...and remanded the matter for a de novo determination by the Commissioner of the Yonkers Department of Public Works (see Wind v. Ravo, 69 A.D.2d 879, 415 N.Y.S.2d 688). The Commissioner found petitioner guilty of the charges preferred against him, reimposed the penalty of demotion originally ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT