Matter of Mullusky v New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation

Matter of Mullusky v New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation 2011 NY Slip Op 05862 Decided on July 7, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on July 7, 2011
Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
5503 113984/09

[*1]In re Chris Mullusky, Petitioner,

v

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, et al., Respondents.



 
Richard V. Rappaport and Associates, East Meadow (Richard
V. Rappaport of counsel), for petitioner.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Alan G.
Krams of counsel), for respondents.

Determination of respondent Department of Parks and Recreation, dated June 5, 2009, which terminated petitioner's employment, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Emily Jane Goodman, J.], entered January 13, 2010), dismissed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner violated agency rules by uttering anti-Semitic remarks and engaging in anti-Semitic conduct, for the purpose of harassing a Jewish co-worker, is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). We perceive no basis to disturb the Administrative Law Judge's credibility determinations (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness in light of petitioner's conduct and his prior disciplinary history (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 39-40 [2001]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JULY 7, 2011

CLERK