Duncan v. Kelly

New York Court of Appeals

Duncan v. Kelly

882 N.E.2d 872, 9 N.Y.3d 1024

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 882 N.E.2d 872 (Duncan v. Kelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duncan v. Kelly, 882 N.E.2d 872, 9 N.Y.3d 1024 (N.Y. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. The certified question should not be answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

[1025]*1025The Police Commissioner has the authority to discharge a probationary police officer for conduct committed while serving as a member of the force (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 14-115). A probationary police officer may be discharged for “almost any reason, or for no reason at all” as long as it is not “in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason” (Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 762, 763 [1999]; see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436 [1987]; Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760 [1984]). We reject petitioner’s argument that he was dismissed solely due to prehiring conduct; rather, in terminating petitioner, the Commissioner relied upon his posthiring conduct of giving false and misleading statements to members of the Internal Affairs Bureau.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. The certified question should not be answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

[1025]*1025The Police Commissioner has the authority to discharge a probationary police officer for conduct committed while serving as a member of the force (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 14-115). A probationary police officer may be discharged for “almost any reason, or for no reason at all” as long as it is not “in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason” (Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 762, 763 [1999]; see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436 [1987]; Matter of York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760 [1984]). We reject petitioner’s argument that he was dismissed solely due to prehiring conduct; rather, in terminating petitioner, the Commissioner relied upon his posthiring conduct of giving false and misleading statements to members of the Internal Affairs Bureau.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

882 N.E.2d 872, 9 N.Y.3d 1024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duncan-v-kelly-ny-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack