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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 8, 1976·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

51 A.D.2d 999 (Buttacavoli v. Frank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related