IN RE MICHAEL PALLESCHI, pet, v. SALVATORE CASSANO, ETC. res

9104. IN RE MICHAEL PALLESCHI, pet, v. SALVATORE CASSANO, ETC. res — Kevin P. Sheerin, Mineola, for pet — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ronald E. Sternberg of counsel), for res — Determination of respondent Commissioner of the New York City Fire Department, dated January 21, 2011, terminating petitioner's employment on the grounds of misconduct in violation of departmental regulations, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Barbara Jaffe, J.], entered December 5, 2011), dismissed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9104. IN RE MICHAEL PALLESCHI, pet, v. SALVATORE CASSANO, ETC. res — Kevin P. Sheerin, Mineola, for pet — Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ronald E. Sternberg of counsel), for res — Determination of respondent Commissioner of the New York City Fire Department, dated January 21, 2011, terminating petitioner’s employment on the grounds of misconduct in violation of departmental regulations, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Barbara Jaffe, J.], entered December 5, 2011), dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination that petitioner violated departmental regulations is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-180 [1978]). Petitioner admittedly photographed a computer screen containing confidential and privileged information concerning a 911 caller’s complaint of a gynecological emergency, as well as the 911 caller’s name, address and telephone number, and uploaded the image to his Facebook account, along with the caption “[c]an’t make this up,” to which approximately 460 of petitioner’s Facebook “friends” had access. Moreover, at the time of the posting, petitioner understood that divulging such patient information was in violation of departmental rules, as well as a serious breach of trust. Petitioner’s argument that the administrative law judge improperly admitted and considered evidence of prior Facebook postings is unpreserved by any objection at the hearing and, in any event, the determination is supported by the record as a whole.

IN RE MICHAEL PALLESCHI, pet, v. SALVATORE CASSANO, ETC. res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal