Brumfield v. Golar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brumfield v. Golar

39 A.D.2d 854, 333 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4391

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

DecidedJune 6, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 854 (Brumfield v. Golar) 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

Brumfield v. Golar, 39 A.D.2d 854, 333 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of New York City Housing Authority dated July 2, 1971, dismissing petitioner from his position as a patrolman in the New York City Housing Authority Police Department, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion, to reduce the penalty to suspension without pay from the date of dismissal to 30 days after the date of the order herein; and as so modified, confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We find that on the record respondent was justified in taking disciplinary action against petitioner. We also find that petitioner’s record as a patrolman and his background as revealed in the transcript were such that a suspension for the period indicated—which amounts to more than 11 months — would serve the purpose of an adequate sanction and would not expose respondent to undue risk from his being retained in the service. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Markewieh, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Determination of New York City Housing Authority dated July 2, 1971, dismissing petitioner from his position as a patrolman in the New York City Housing Authority Police Department, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion, to reduce the penalty to suspension without pay from the date of dismissal to 30 days after the date of the order herein; and as so modified, confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We find that on the record respondent was justified in taking disciplinary action against petitioner. We also find that petitioner’s record as a patrolman and his background as revealed in the transcript were such that a suspension for the period indicated—which amounts to more than 11 months — would serve the purpose of an adequate sanction and would not expose respondent to undue risk from his being retained in the service. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Markewieh, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 854, 333 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brumfield-v-golar-nyappdiv-1972.