Boyce v. Ward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boyce v. Ward

158 A.D.2d 319, 551 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1227

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 158 A.D.2d 319 (Boyce v. Ward) 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

Boyce v. Ward, 158 A.D.2d 319, 551 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon review of this record, we conclude that the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and, [320]*320therefore, should not be disturbed. (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176.) The Police Department’s sole eyewitness testified that petitioner had attempted to utilize his position as a police officer to solicit oral sex at the Miyako Massage Parlour and, when rebuffed, had gone on a drunken rampage with his three companions, also police officers, which included the acts of urinating on a table containing food valued at $250 and damaging walls, doors, and light fixtures. This testimony, which was fully credited by the Hearing Officer, was sufficient to support the charges, and did not require corroboration. (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436.)

We further find that the sanction imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to shock one’s sense of fairness. (See, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 234.) Much deference is to be accorded an agency’s imposition of penalties (Matter of Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182), particularly where matters of internal discipline in the Police Department are concerned. (Matter of Meyer v Rozzi, 108 AD2d 859, 860.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

Upon review of this record, we conclude that the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and, [320]*320therefore, should not be disturbed. (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176.) The Police Department’s sole eyewitness testified that petitioner had attempted to utilize his position as a police officer to solicit oral sex at the Miyako Massage Parlour and, when rebuffed, had gone on a drunken rampage with his three companions, also police officers, which included the acts of urinating on a table containing food valued at $250 and damaging walls, doors, and light fixtures. This testimony, which was fully credited by the Hearing Officer, was sufficient to support the charges, and did not require corroboration. (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436.)

We further find that the sanction imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to shock one’s sense of fairness. (See, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 234.) Much deference is to be accorded an agency’s imposition of penalties (Matter of Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182), particularly where matters of internal discipline in the Police Department are concerned. (Matter of Meyer v Rozzi, 108 AD2d 859, 860.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 319, 551 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyce-v-ward-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack