Majority
We conclude that the determination was based on substantial evidence in the record. Discrepancies between two reports prepared by petitioner describing the accident, as well as testimony that no evidence was found supporting petitioner’s account of the accident, raised the issue of petitioner’s credibility. The hearing officer found petitioner’s version of the accident to be incredible. Since the hearing officer has the opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses, his findings should be accorded considerable weight (Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391 , 394).
We also conclude that the punishment imposed was not “ ‘ “so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” ’ ” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 233; Matter of Doino v
Cases cited
- Simpson v. Wolansky 38 NY2d 391 at 394 p. 1047
- Pell v. Board of Education 34 NY2d 222 at 233 p. 1047
- Doino v. Laehy 63 NY2d 663 p. 1048
- Darling v. Hastings 64 AD2d 857 p. 1048
- Bigelow v. Board of Trustees 98 AD2d 933 p. 1048