Hopper v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hopper v. Kelly

106 A.D.3d 530, 965 N.Y.S.2d 457

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

DecidedMay 16, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 106 A.D.3d 530 (Hopper v. Kelly) 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

Hopper v. Kelly, 106 A.D.3d 530, 965 N.Y.S.2d 457 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated September 28, 2011, which terminated petitioner’s employment as a New York City police officer, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Donna M. Mills, JJ, entered April 26, 2012), dismissed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner engaged in serious misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). Petitioner admitted that he left a loaded firearm unsecured in his backpack on a desk in a college library and later made an unauthorized call to a witness in an investigation against him. Moreover, the evidence shows that on another occasion, petitioner made vulgar statements and exposed his genitals to an arrestee while on duty in the precinct. There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

The penalty imposed does not shock the conscience since respondent “is accountable to the public for the integrity of the Department” (Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated September 28, 2011, which terminated petitioner’s employment as a New York City police officer, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Donna M. Mills, JJ, entered April 26, 2012), dismissed, without costs.

The determination that petitioner engaged in serious misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). Petitioner admitted that he left a loaded firearm unsecured in his backpack on a desk in a college library and later made an unauthorized call to a witness in an investigation against him. Moreover, the evidence shows that on another occasion, petitioner made vulgar statements and exposed his genitals to an arrestee while on duty in the precinct. There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

The penalty imposed does not shock the conscience since respondent “is accountable to the public for the integrity of the Department” (Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 530, 965 N.Y.S.2d 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopper-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack