| Matter of Principe v New York City Dept. of Educ. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08568 [20 NY3d 963] |
| December 13, 2012 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, February 6, 2013 |
| In the Matter of Peter Principe, Respondent, v New York City Department of Education, Appellant. |
Decided December 13, 2012
Matter of Principe v New York City Dept. of Educ., 94 AD3d 431, affirmed.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Julian L. Kalkstein of counsel), for appellant.
Lichten & Bright, PC, New York City (Stuart Lichten of counsel), for respondent.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative. The Appellate Division correctly determined that the penalty of termination imposed on petitioner was excessive in light of all the circumstances (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]).
Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read and Pigott concur. Judge Smith dissents and votes to reverse for the reason that it cannot be concluded, as a matter of law, that the penalty of termination shocks the judicial conscience (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]).