Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Misconduct — Termination
Emmerling v. Town of Richmond
Appealed from the Supreme Court, Ontario County
Background: The petitioner commenced an Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination to terminate his employment as a recreational specialist for the respondent. The petitioner argued that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence and the penalty of termination was an abuse of discretion.
Ruling: The Appellate Division held that the determination was supported by substantial evidence. The petitioner’s duties included extensive contact with children and he had been notified that he was required to act as a role model for them. The petitioner, by selling alcohol to a minor, had committed misconduct in violation of the Penal Law. In light of the circumstances, termination was not disproportionate of a penalty for such misconduct.
Christina A. Agola for the petitioner; Edward C. Kenyon of the Kenyon & Kenyon Law Firm for the respondent