Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Sinicropi v. Bennett 60 N.Y.2d 918

← Cases

Sinicropi v. Bennett

60 N.Y.2d 918 Court N.Y. Decision date 1983-11-23 English

Contents

Majority

p. 918
In the Matter of Angelina Sinicropi, Appellant-Respondent, v Robert J. Bennett, as Deputy Director of Probation of the County of Nassau, et al., Respondents-Appellants .
Argued October 21, 1983;
decided November 23, 1983
p. 919
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
William D. Friedman for appellant-respondent.
Edward G. McCabe, County Attorney (.Robert O. Boyhan of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
William M. Wallens for Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, amicus curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination to terminate appellant’s employment, which was supported by substantial evidence in the record and did not constitute a disproportionate penalty, was proper. (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 231-233.) Appellant is not entitled to termination pay because the collective bargaining agreement between respondent and her union provides that termination

p. 920
pay will not be awarded where termination of an employee is, as it was here, for cause. That agreement is binding upon appellant. (Antinore v State of New York, 49 AD2d 6 , 10-11, affd 40 NY2d 921 .) Respondent should pay appellant . the salary she would have earned for the period between the original termination decision (which was annulled) and the subsequent termination decision, less any compensation derived from other employment during that period and any unemployment insurance benefits received for that period. (Civil Service Law, § 75, subd 3; Matter of Amkraut v Hults, 21 AD2d 260 , affd 15 NY2d 627 .)

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.

Cases cited