Alfred v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alfred v. Safir

283 A.D.2d 280, 724 N.Y.S.2d 312, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5066

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

DecidedMay 17, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 280 (Alfred v. Safir) 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

Alfred v. Safir, 283 A.D.2d 280, 724 N.Y.S.2d 312, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated October 13, 1999, suspending petitioner for 30 days and placing him on disciplinary probation for one year, 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 [Michael Stallman, J.], entered May 10, 2000), dismissed, without costs.

The various determinations and penalties agreed to by petitioner and respondent’s advocate and/or hearing officer were not binding on respondent (see, Matter of Silverman v McGuire, 51 NY2d 228, 231-232), and there is no basis for petitioner’s claim that respondent’s rejection of them was based on racial and other arbitrary considerations. The penalty ultimately imposed after a hearing is not so disproportionate to petitioner’s failure to perform the most basic aspects of his assignment as to shock our sense of fairness (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 445; Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 360). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated October 13, 1999, suspending petitioner for 30 days and placing him on disciplinary probation for one year, 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 [Michael Stallman, J.], entered May 10, 2000), dismissed, without costs.

The various determinations and penalties agreed to by petitioner and respondent’s advocate and/or hearing officer were not binding on respondent (see, Matter of Silverman v McGuire, 51 NY2d 228, 231-232), and there is no basis for petitioner’s claim that respondent’s rejection of them was based on racial and other arbitrary considerations. The penalty ultimately imposed after a hearing is not so disproportionate to petitioner’s failure to perform the most basic aspects of his assignment as to shock our sense of fairness (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 445; Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 360). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 280, 724 N.Y.S.2d 312, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfred-v-safir-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack