2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...

Team 2 v 8
MARK RUTKOWSKI, Appellant, v. THE
YMCA, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First
Department, New York
COUNSEL:
for Appellant.
March 10, 2012, Argued
March 10, 2012, Decided
Evan Prentice and Dan Liesner,
Steven Viele and Nichole
Rubertone, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Englemann, Walker, Dole, Galusha,
Muthig
OPINION BY: Last
OPINION
We the Court of Appeals of the State of New
York find in favor of the respondent as for the
termination of his position, and in favor of the
Appellant as for keeping his pension after a
deduction of $20,000. The respondent proved
that Rutkowski’s actions were no longer worthy
of him being employed with the YMCA. The
appellant showed that Rutkowski’s actions were
not harmful enough to toward the YMCA for
him to lose his pension, but were harmful
enough for him to get $20,000 deducted from his
pension.
Crucial to this case was the fact of whether or
not “termination imposed on [Mark Rutkowski]
by [the YMCA] was ‘disproportionate as to
shock one’s sense of fairness.” In Iarocci v.
West Haverstraw. We review the search of the
“standard for determining the appropriate
penalty when a finding of guilt has been found
in an administrative proceeding and punishment
imposed.” The petitioners were unable to cover
any part of this cross case that makes it unable to
cite any arguments and benefits in the case. The
respondent was able to cover how Rutkowski
didn’t have excused absences, and provide the
proper documents in order to show how it is
irrelevant. In the case, like in Muraik v Landi we
held that submitting falsified documents to ones
superiors does not constitute as a reasonable
justification for losing one’s pension. However
in our case because Rutkowski embezzled
$20,000 we deduct that from his pension and
because of the embezzlement we terminate his
position at the YMCA as the respondent argued.
The petitioner’s used Muraik v Landi to show
Rutkowski’s long history as a distinguished
employee. They also showed the devastation that
would come if we took away his pension and the
affect on his family and his future. In addition
they were able to prove that Rutkowski wasn’t
motivated by malice and selfishness in his
actions. The respondents used the case in how
Rutkowski willingly and knowingly submitted
falsified records and documents. Unlike in
Goudy v. Schaffer where the court suggested
that where “a petitioner’s misconduct was one
of moral turpitude or motivated by malice or
selfishness” would result in loss of a pension it
doesn’t compare to the appellant because
Rutkowski wasn’t guilty of moral turpitude.
Also the petitioners had ‘to change the ruling of
termination because of the affect it would
impose on the family” for this reason Rutkowski
was able to keep his pension. Although
embezzlement usually constitutes a crime of
moral turpitude the case at bar is the rare
exception. The petitioners failed to use this case
in a way to prove Rutkowskis innocence’s. The
respondents were able to show guilt on
Rutkowski because of the one stain on his
record. The petitioners were able though to show
how he quickly took care of the Bowerman
Speedo incident, and how nothing has happened
like it again. In the end both sides contradicted
what they said by agreeing on the loss of job but
keeping of the pension and the deduction off of
the pension.
We hereby find in favor of both the appellant
and respondent by rewarding the appellant his
pension and the respondent with the termination
of Rutkowski and a deduction of $20,000
44