Crowe v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crowe v. Kelly

77 A.D.3d 556, 909 N.Y.S.2d 352

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

DecidedOctober 26, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 556 (Crowe 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

Crowe v. Kelly, 77 A.D.3d 556, 909 N.Y.S.2d 352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated July 22, 2008, finding petitioner guilty of sexual harassment and other misconduct and imposing a penalty of one year of dismissal, probation and suspension from duty without pay for 60 days, unanimously confirmed, the peti[557]*557tion denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Alice Schlesinger, J.], entered May 26, 2009) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence of record supports the findings of the hearing officer. There is no basis to disturb the hearing officer’s rejection of petitioner’s explanations for his actions, or the hearing officer’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated July 22, 2008, finding petitioner guilty of sexual harassment and other misconduct and imposing a penalty of one year of dismissal, probation and suspension from duty without pay for 60 days, unanimously confirmed, the peti[557]*557tion denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Alice Schlesinger, J.], entered May 26, 2009) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence of record supports the findings of the hearing officer. There is no basis to disturb the hearing officer’s rejection of petitioner’s explanations for his actions, or the hearing officer’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 556, 909 N.Y.S.2d 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowe-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack