Holzberg v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holzberg v. Safir

260 A.D.2d 186, 686 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3622

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

DecidedApril 8, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 186 (Holzberg v. Safir) 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

Holzberg v. Safir, 260 A.D.2d 186, 686 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent Police Commissioner dated May 8, 1997, imposing a forfeiture of five vacation days, unanimously annulled, on the law and the facts, and the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Bruce Allen, J.], entered December 16, 1997), granted, without costs.

Upon review of the hearing testimony, some of which was [187]*187vague as to the exact instructions given to petitioner by his superior officer, the evidence presented was inadequate to support the finding by the Hearing Officer that petitioner was guilty of Specification No. 2. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent Police Commissioner dated May 8, 1997, imposing a forfeiture of five vacation days, unanimously annulled, on the law and the facts, and the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Bruce Allen, J.], entered December 16, 1997), granted, without costs.

Upon review of the hearing testimony, some of which was [187]*187vague as to the exact instructions given to petitioner by his superior officer, the evidence presented was inadequate to support the finding by the Hearing Officer that petitioner was guilty of Specification No. 2. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 186, 686 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holzberg-v-safir-nyappdiv-1999.