You are here: / / Termination Shocks One’s Sense of Fairness
, ,

Termination Shocks One’s Sense of Fairness

The Fourth Department determined the termination of a city employee shocked one’s sense of fairness.  The court explained the relevant criteria:

“[A] result is shocking to one’s sense of fairness if the sanction imposed is so grave in its impact on the individual subjected to it that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, incompetence, failure or turpitude of the individual, or to the harm or risk of harm to the agency or institution, or to the public generally” … . “Where, as here, there is no grave moral turpitude’ and no grave injury to the agency involved or to the public weal,’ courts may ameliorate harsh impositions of sanctions by administrative agencies . . . in order to accomplish what a sense of justice would dictate’ ” … . Matter of Harwood v Addison, 2014 NY Slip Op 04660, 4th Dept 6-20=14

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE PROPER PAY FOR A TEACHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE DATE OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION IN THE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION DID NOT INVALIDATE IT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LEAD-PAINT CONDITION, DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO TEST FOR LEAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALLOWED CONSIDERATION OF A THEORY NOT ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED.
Plaintiff’s Allegations of Injuries in the Bill of Particulars Were Not So Broad as to Constitute a Waiver of the Physician-Patient Privilege for Plaintiff’s Entire Medical History
IN ORDER TO OBTAIN TITLE TO THE VACANT BUILDING AT A SHOPPING MALL UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW (EDPL), THE TOWN MUST SPECIFY THE PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY WILL BE USED; THE TOWN’S FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE PUBLIC PURPOSE WAS FATAL TO THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT).
COURT FAILED TO MAKE A MINIMAL INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINT ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE OR CONTROL THE WORK THAT CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AND THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Statement Identifying Shooter Made by a Witness Who Did Not See the Shooting... NYS Department of Environmental Protection (DEC) Has Authority to Address the...