Adams v. Police Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Police Department

256 A.D.2d 28, 680 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12915

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 1, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 28 (Adams v. Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Police Department, 256 A.D.2d 28, 680 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated October 3, 1996, which dismissed petitioner from his position as a police officer, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Franklin Weissberg, J.], entered October 3, 1997) dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim that he was deprived of his right to due process and a fair hearing because of witness tampering by [29]*29respondents is unsupported by the record (see, Matter of Palette v City of New York, 208 AD2d 427, lv denied 85 NY2d 803). Substantial evidence, including petitioner’s admission of his drug use during a taped conversation, supports the determination that petitioner possessed and ingested marihuana. No basis exists to disturb the Hearing Officer’s rejection of petitioner’s claim that his ingestion of marihuana was involuntary, as the Hearing Officer’s determination was based upon credibility findings largely beyond our review (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436; see also, Matter of Harmon v New York City Police Dept., 188 AD2d 429, lv denied 82 NY2d 652). Under the circumstances, the penalty of dismissal is not so disproportionate to the proven misconduct as to shock our sense of fairness. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated October 3, 1996, which dismissed petitioner from his position as a police officer, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Franklin Weissberg, J.], entered October 3, 1997) dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim that he was deprived of his right to due process and a fair hearing because of witness tampering by [29]*29respondents is unsupported by the record (see, Matter of Palette v City of New York, 208 AD2d 427, lv denied 85 NY2d 803). Substantial evidence, including petitioner’s admission of his drug use during a taped conversation, supports the determination that petitioner possessed and ingested marihuana. No basis exists to disturb the Hearing Officer’s rejection of petitioner’s claim that his ingestion of marihuana was involuntary, as the Hearing Officer’s determination was based upon credibility findings largely beyond our review (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436; see also, Matter of Harmon v New York City Police Dept., 188 AD2d 429, lv denied 82 NY2d 652). Under the circumstances, the penalty of dismissal is not so disproportionate to the proven misconduct as to shock our sense of fairness. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 28, 680 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-police-department-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack