ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Use of hearsay evidence in administrative hearings

ADVERTISEMENTS
Use of hearsay evidence in administrative hearings
Hoffman v Village of Sidney, 252 A.D.2d 844

Edward F. Hoffman, Jr., a Village of Sidney police officer, was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law alleging:

1. While off-duty he threatened one or more persons;

2. Insubordination and being disrespectful to a superior; and

3. Violation of department rules and regulations.

Found guilty of the charges, Hoffman was terminated from his position with the village. Hoffman appealed, claiming that the finding that he had made threats was not supported by the record and the penalty imposed was excessive. Another claim that he was improperly suspended without pay for more than 30 days was deemed untimely.

As to Hoffman?s denial that he had made any threatening statements, the court noted that ?the Special Deputy to whom [Hoffman] had made the threatening and disparaging remarks testified at the hearing.?

In addition, witnesses had testified concerning statements made to them by the Special Deputy concerning Hoffman?s threatening statements.

While these constituted ?hearsay? testimony, the Appellate Division pointed out that ?... hearsay is admissible in administrative hearings and may be used to support a finding of substantial evidence.? While Hoffman testified that he made no threatening statements and other witnesses testified that he did, the Court said that ?this simply presented a credibility issue to be determined by the Hearing Officer.?

As to Hoffman?s challenging the penalty imposed, dismissal, the Appellate Division decided that termination was ?not so disproportionate to the underlying offenses as to be shocking to one?s sense of fairness,? citing Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222, ?given the serious nature of the charges and [Hoffman?s] past disciplinary record.?

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on September 09, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0128 secs (new cache)