You are here: / / THE FINDINGS LEADING TO THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONER WERE CONCLUSORY AND...
, ,

THE FINDINGS LEADING TO THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONER WERE CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT ALLOW MEANINGFUL REVIEW; PETITIONER’S SUPERVISOR, WHO BROUGHT THE MISCONDUCT CHARGES, CHOSE THE HEARING OFFICER AND TESTIFIED AT THE HEARING, SHOULD RECUSE HERSELF FROM FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON REMITTAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the termination petitioner’s employment with the county, determined the findings were conclusory and therefore did not allow meaningful review. In addition, the Third Department held that petitioner’s supervisor, KIssane, who brought the misconduct charges, chose the hearing officer and testified at the hearing, should be disqualified from the proceedings on remittal:

“Administrative findings of fact must be made in such a manner that the parties may be assured that the decision is based on the evidence in the record, uninfluenced by extralegal considerations, so as to permit intelligent challenge by an aggrieved party and adequate judicial review” … . The Hearing Officer made, at most, conclusory statements that petitioner was guilty of the relevant charges. More to the point, he failed to support these conclusions with any factual evidence adduced at the hearing … .. In the absence of specific factual findings, meaningful judicial review cannot be conducted. Accordingly, the determination must be annulled and the matter remitted for the development of appropriate findings … . * * *

“Although involvement in the disciplinary process does not automatically require recusal, . . . individuals who are personally or extensively involved in the disciplinary process should disqualify themselves from reviewing the recommendations of a Hearing Officer and from acting on the charges” … . Matter of Morgan v Warren County, 2021 NY Slip Op 01107, Third Dept 2-18-21

 

You might also like
SORA Proof Burdens Explained
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, THE JUDGE IMPROPERLY IMPOSED AN ENHANCED SENTENCE AND CHANGED THE TERMS OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT; GUILTY PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
No Constitutional Issue Raised by Claim that County Is Paying Too High a “Mobility Tax” Because It Does Not Receive as Much Transit Service as Other Counties Paying the Same Amount
Family Court Did Not Inform Respondent of His Rights and Did Not Conduct an Adequate Colloquy—PINS Adjudication Reversed
A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BROUGHT BEFORE ISSUE IS JOINED IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Court Is Not Required to Notify Defendant of His Right to Contest the Constitutionality of His Prior Conviction Before Sentencing Defendant as a Second Felony Offender
Absence of Privity Between Beneficiary of an Estate and the Attorneys Who Represented the Estate in Medical Malpractice and Wrongful Death Actions Precluded Legal Malpractice Action by Beneficiary
Sex Offender May Not Avoid Civil Commitment Proceeding by Renouncing Citizenship and Leaving the Country

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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LEAVING AN ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD BOY UNSUPERVISED CONSTITUTED... THE CHILD’S STATEMENTS ABOUT SEXUAL TOUCHING WERE ADEQUATELY CORROBORATED...