Kreisler v. New York City Transit Authority

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 2 N.Y. 775, 780 N.Y.S.2d 302, 2 N.Y.3d 775, 812 N.E.2d 1250, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 984

Decision Date: 5/6/2004

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Kreisler v. New York City Transit Authority, 2 N.Y. 775, 780 N.Y.S.2d 302, 2 N.Y.3d 775, 812 N.E.2d 1250, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 984 (2004)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 2004

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 5% most-cited · cited by 59 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.57

N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.2

Most recently cited by10

2025Matter of McMaster v. Town of Islip N.Y. App. Div.
2024Matter of P & I Prop., LLC v. Commissioner, State of N.Y., Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal (DHCR) N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2024Matter of McArthur v. Town of Brookhaven Dept. of Hous. & Human Servs. N.Y. App. Div.
2024Matter of Dzaferovic v. New York City Dept. of Fin. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2023Matter of Bonilla v. NYS Dept. of Motor Vehs. N.Y. App. Div.
2022Matter of Forbes & Assoc., LLC v. Nassau County Dept. of Consumer Affairs N.Y. App. Div.
2022Matter of Tinter v. Board of Trustees of the Pound Ridge Lib. Dist. N.Y. App. Div.
2021Matter of Sullivan v. County of Rockland N.Y. App. Div.
2019Matter of Hunt v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles N.Y. App. Div.
2018Matter of Clapp v. Fiala N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 1 case

Pell v. Board of Education

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

In the Matter of Richard Kreisler, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Robert Ligansky, New York City, for appellant.
Martin B. Schabel, Brooklyn, and Victor M. Levy for respondent.

majority Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

An administrative penalty must be upheld unless it “is so disproportionate to the offense . . . as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness,” thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 237 [1974] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be concluded, as a matter of law, that the penalty of demotion shocks the judicial conscience. Petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.