Buttacavoli v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buttacavoli v. Frank

51 A.D.2d 999, 381 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11752

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 999 (Buttacavoli v. Frank) 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

Buttacavoli v. Frank, 51 A.D.2d 999, 381 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, dated July 7, 1975, which, after a hearing, fined petitioner five days’ pay and reprimanded him for certain violations of the rules and regulations of the Nassau County Police Department. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. We will not substitute our own judgment for that of the administrative officer, whose ability and knowledge have been recognized by confiding in him the operation and administration of a sensitive governmental function, where it has not been shown that his decision was unfair or capricious (see Matter of De Boer v Looney, 60 Misc 2d 673, affd 34 AD2d 674). Furthermore, we find the penalty imposed to be reasonable in light of all of the circumstances (see Matter of Stolz v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y, 4 AD2d 361). Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review respondent’s determination, dated July 7, 1975, which, after a hearing, fined petitioner five days’ pay and reprimanded him for certain violations of the rules and regulations of the Nassau County Police Department. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. We will not substitute our own judgment for that of the administrative officer, whose ability and knowledge have been recognized by confiding in him the operation and administration of a sensitive governmental function, where it has not been shown that his decision was unfair or capricious (see Matter of De Boer v Looney, 60 Misc 2d 673, affd 34 AD2d 674). Furthermore, we find the penalty imposed to be reasonable in light of all of the circumstances (see Matter of Stolz v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y, 4 AD2d 361). Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 999, 381 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buttacavoli-v-frank-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack