Danahy v. Kerik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Danahy v. Kerik

298 A.D.2d 278, 748 N.Y.S.2d 486, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10172

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

DecidedOctober 24, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 278 (Danahy v. Kerik) 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

Danahy v. Kerik, 298 A.D.2d 278, 748 N.Y.S.2d 486, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated December 20, 2000, finding that petitioner used excessive force in making an arrest, and suspending petitioner for 20 days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Bruce Allen, J.], entered September 11, 2001), dismissed, without costs.

[279]*279Substantial evidence supports the findings that petitioner punched and used his flashlight as a weapon against the complainant while on top of him on the ground. No basis exists to disturb the Administrative Law Judge’s rejection of petitioner’s version of the incident that he and the intoxicated complainant simply fell off the curb and onto the ground as the complainant was flailing his arms in an attempt to avoid being handcuffed, and that he did not push, punch or strike him (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). The 20-day suspension does not shock our sense of fairness. Concur— Williams, P.J., Buckley, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated December 20, 2000, finding that petitioner used excessive force in making an arrest, and suspending petitioner for 20 days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Bruce Allen, J.], entered September 11, 2001), dismissed, without costs.

[279]*279Substantial evidence supports the findings that petitioner punched and used his flashlight as a weapon against the complainant while on top of him on the ground. No basis exists to disturb the Administrative Law Judge’s rejection of petitioner’s version of the incident that he and the intoxicated complainant simply fell off the curb and onto the ground as the complainant was flailing his arms in an attempt to avoid being handcuffed, and that he did not push, punch or strike him (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). The 20-day suspension does not shock our sense of fairness. Concur— Williams, P.J., Buckley, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 278, 748 N.Y.S.2d 486, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danahy-v-kerik-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack