Cottingham v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cottingham v. Kelly

11 A.D.3d 285, 782 N.Y.S.2d 462, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11952

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 285 (Cottingham v. Kelly) 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

Cottingham v. Kelly, 11 A.D.3d 285, 782 N.Y.S.2d 462, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated July 17, 2002, which dismissed petitioner from her position as police officer, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Rosalyn Richter, J.], entered April 10, 2003) dismissed, without costs.

The administrative determination that petitioner knowingly [286]*286associated with a person she had reason to believe was engaged in criminal activity was supported by substantial evidence, including, in particular, petitioner’s own testimony in her official interview and at the administrative hearing (see Matter of Richardson v Safir, 258 AD2d 328 [1999]). No basis exists to disturb respondent’s credibility findings (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

We have considered petitioner’s argument that the penalty of dismissal is unduly harsh, and find it to be without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated July 17, 2002, which dismissed petitioner from her position as police officer, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Rosalyn Richter, J.], entered April 10, 2003) dismissed, without costs.

The administrative determination that petitioner knowingly [286]*286associated with a person she had reason to believe was engaged in criminal activity was supported by substantial evidence, including, in particular, petitioner’s own testimony in her official interview and at the administrative hearing (see Matter of Richardson v Safir, 258 AD2d 328 [1999]). No basis exists to disturb respondent’s credibility findings (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

We have considered petitioner’s argument that the penalty of dismissal is unduly harsh, and find it to be without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 285, 782 N.Y.S.2d 462, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cottingham-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack