Cruz v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cruz v. Kelly

18 A.D.3d 361, 794 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5537

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 24, 2005·Published

Opinion

— Determination of respondent Commissioner, dated September 23, 2003, which found petitioner guilty of failing to report wrongful conduct by another member of the service and imposed a penalty of 10 forfeited vacation days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J], entered April 27, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supported the finding that petitioner failed to notify proper authorities of his knowledge that a police officer involved in a motor vehicle accident had left the scene of the accident without permission and was alleged to have been intoxicated (CPLR 7803 [4]). There is no basis in the record to disturb the agency’s findings regarding witness credibility (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436 [1987]). Furthermore, the penalty imposed is not shocking to our conscience (Matter of Rodriguez-Rivera v Kelly, 2 NY3d 776 [2004]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Catterson, JJ.

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

— Determination of respondent Commissioner, dated September 23, 2003, which found petitioner guilty of failing to report wrongful conduct by another member of the service and imposed a penalty of 10 forfeited vacation days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J], entered April 27, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supported the finding that petitioner failed to notify proper authorities of his knowledge that a police officer involved in a motor vehicle accident had left the scene of the accident without permission and was alleged to have been intoxicated (CPLR 7803 [4]). There is no basis in the record to disturb the agency’s findings regarding witness credibility (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436 [1987]). Furthermore, the penalty imposed is not shocking to our conscience (Matter of Rodriguez-Rivera v Kelly, 2 NY3d 776 [2004]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Catterson, JJ.

Cruz v. Kelly, 18 A.D.3d 361, 794 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

18 A.D.3d 361 (Cruz v. Kelly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related