Caruso v. Board of Collective Bargaining

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caruso v. Board of Collective Bargaining

161 A.D.2d 444, 555 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5587

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

DecidedMay 17, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 161 A.D.2d 444 (Caruso v. Board of Collective Bargaining) 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

Caruso v. Board of Collective Bargaining, 161 A.D.2d 444, 555 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Decision and order number B-64-88 of the respondent Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York which, following a hearing, determined that the topic of a February 17, 1987 directive by the Police Commissioner was not subject to collective bargaining, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the CPLR article 78 proceeding (transferred to this court by order of Sup Ct, NY County, Helen Freedman, J., entered on or about Apr. 14, 1989) dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

[445]*445This court’s inquiry is limited to whether the determination by respondent Board is supported by substantial evidence. (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 [1974].) Testimony and documentary evidence offered by the City of New York was that "hog-tying”, a body-immobilizing restraint procedure prohibited by the directive, was neither taught during the training of police officers nor the subject of any prior directive, intradepartmental communication or manual. Further, the supervisor of the city’s entire patrol force testified that in his 41 years of service he never saw "hog-tying” used and was not aware that it ever had been used by members of the Department. Thus, substantial evidence supports the respondent Board’s conclusion that the directive did not constitute a change in existing Department policy and was not subject to collective bargaining. Concur—Ross, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

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

Decision and order number B-64-88 of the respondent Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York which, following a hearing, determined that the topic of a February 17, 1987 directive by the Police Commissioner was not subject to collective bargaining, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the CPLR article 78 proceeding (transferred to this court by order of Sup Ct, NY County, Helen Freedman, J., entered on or about Apr. 14, 1989) dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

[445]*445This court’s inquiry is limited to whether the determination by respondent Board is supported by substantial evidence. (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 [1974].) Testimony and documentary evidence offered by the City of New York was that "hog-tying”, a body-immobilizing restraint procedure prohibited by the directive, was neither taught during the training of police officers nor the subject of any prior directive, intradepartmental communication or manual. Further, the supervisor of the city’s entire patrol force testified that in his 41 years of service he never saw "hog-tying” used and was not aware that it ever had been used by members of the Department. Thus, substantial evidence supports the respondent Board’s conclusion that the directive did not constitute a change in existing Department policy and was not subject to collective bargaining. Concur—Ross, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 444, 555 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caruso-v-board-of-collective-bargaining-nyappdiv-1990.