| Matter of Hughes v New York State Unified Ct. Sys., Off. of Ct.Admin. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07932 [78 AD3d 700] |
| November 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Thomas Hughes, Petitioner, v New York StateUnified Court System, Office of Court Administration, Respondent. |
—[*1] John W. McConnell, New York, N.Y. (John Eiseman and Lisa M. Evans of counsel), forrespondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State UnifiedCourt System, Office of Court Administration (Plumadore, J.), dated October 24, 2008, whichsustained the recommendation of a hearing officer, made after a hearing, finding that the petitionerengaged in acts of misconduct and incompetency prejudicial to the good order and efficiency of theNew York State Unified Court System and adversely reflecting on his fitness to continue as a courtofficer, and terminated him from his position as a court officer.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding isdismissed on the merits, with costs.
On February 5, 2007, the respondent New York State Unified Court System, Office of CourtAdministration (hereinafter OCA) filed administrative charges against the petitioner, Court OfficerThomas Hughes. After the ensuing hearing, a hearing officer found that, between September 2005 andDecember 2006, Hughes accelerated his car while it was in close proximity to his supervisor as thesupervisor was entering a crosswalk, reported late for duty several times, was repeatedly insubordinateto several supervisors, failed to keep his uniform in proper condition, failed to keep his weaponproperly loaded, and kept an impermissible metal-jacketed round in his weapon, which was capable ofpiercing courthouse walls. In a determination dated October 24, 2008, OCA ordered that Hughes beterminated from his position as a Court Officer.
Hughes filed the instant petition on February 20, 2009, to review the determination of OCA.Appellate review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law is limited towhether that determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Jennings v NewYork State Off. of Mental Health, 90 NY2d 227, 239 [1997]; Matter of Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. vHarper, 49 AD3d 735 [2008]). Substantial evidence has been defined as "such relevant proofas a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" (300Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). Moreover, " '[t]he courts may not weigh the evidence or reject [*2]the choice madeby [an administrative agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists' " (Matterof Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 444 [1987], quoting Matter of Stork Rest. vBoland, 282 NY 256, 267 [1940]). Hearsay evidence may be the basis for an administrativedetermination (see Matter of Gray v Adduci, 73 NY2d 741, 742 [1988]).
Here, the determination was supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, the penalty oftermination of employment was not so disproportionate to the misconduct as to shock the conscience(see generally Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns ofScarsdale and Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 223 [1974]; cf. Matter of Muraik v Landi, 19 AD3d697, 697-698 [2005]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.