Court Opinion

ID: 9867006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 14:30:32.527179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:11.580033
License: Public Domain

Lewis and Conway, JJ.,
dissent in the following memorandum : While we may not substitute our judgment for that of the removing officer, we can and must determine whether the person alleging incompetency or misconduct has sustained the burden of proof, under subdivision 1 of section 22 of the Civil Service Law, by “ substantial evidence ”. (Matter of Miller v. Kling, 291 N. Y. 65, 69.) In the instant case, in view of the confused, conflicting and self-contradictory testimony of the sole witness for appellant, the lack of corroboration of essential particulars of her story, and the undisputed evidence of petitioner’s good character and unblemished record of forty-two years in the public service, we cannot agree that the burden of proof was here sustained by substantial evidence. (Matter of O’Kelly v. Hill, 286 N. Y. 593.)
Loughran, Ch. J., Dye, Fuld and Bromley, JJ., concur with Desmond, J.; Lewis and Conway, JJ., dissent in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.