Feeley v. McMahon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feeley v. McMahon

30 A.D.2d 689, 292 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3737

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

DecidedJune 17, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 689 (Feeley v. McMahon) 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

Feeley v. McMahon, 30 A.D.2d 689, 292 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Respondent’s determination dated November 15, 1966 modified, on the law, by annulling the finding of guilt on specification No. 3 and the imposition of punishment thereon. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. In our opinion there was no substantial evidence to support a finding of guilt under specification No. 3 based on rule 158 of the Rules and Regulations of the Bureau of Police, Department of Public Safety of the City of Yonkers. That rule applies to an unlawful business and the petitioner patrolman’s acts related to a lawful business. The finding as to specification No. 6 is supported by substantial evidence. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Respondent’s determination dated November 15, 1966 modified, on the law, by annulling the finding of guilt on specification No. 3 and the imposition of punishment thereon. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. In our opinion there was no substantial evidence to support a finding of guilt under specification No. 3 based on rule 158 of the Rules and Regulations of the Bureau of Police, Department of Public Safety of the City of Yonkers. That rule applies to an unlawful business and the petitioner patrolman’s acts related to a lawful business. The finding as to specification No. 6 is supported by substantial evidence. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 689, 292 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feeley-v-mcmahon-nyappdiv-1968.