King v. State

At the ensuing hearing, petitioner’s supervisor, Steve Bruso, testified that he had no recollection of signing a time off slip for petitioner prior to the Christmas 1999 break.^[1] However, Bruso did prepare a memorandum for the Deputy Superintendent dated January 11, 2000 which read:

“I did not sign a time off slip for December 29, 1999 for [petitioner]. I did sign a slip for December 15,1999, but did not give [petitioner] permission to alter the slip, nor did she ask permission to alter the slip.

“This has been submitted for your information.”

The Hearing Officer’s written decision recommended that petitioner be found guilty of both charges and suspended without pay for a period of one month. In arriving at his recommendation, the Hearing Officer concluded that he was “not limited to comparing [the Deputy Superintendent’s] lack of any direct knowledge of the events of December 14th, Bruso’s present inability to recall the events of December 14, 1999, and * * * [the] clear and positive recall[^[2] ] of the events of that day [by petitioner’s witness].” Rather the Hearing Officer determined that he “must also include Bruso’s clear and definitive response of Ties sir,’ to the question Ts [the January 11, 2000 memo] an accurate document?’ and the contents of the document itself on the basis of the doctrine of Past Recollection Recorded.” The Hearing Officer’s recommendations were adopted by respondent and petitioner now challenges that determination in this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

In these types of proceedings, it is beyond cavil that our inquiry is limited to whether the administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Reilly v Board of Regents, 250 AD2d 884 , 885; Matter of State of New York Dept. of Correctional Servs. v Kinsella, 220 AD2d 19 , 22). Substantial evidence is “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 , 180).