in Matter of Jose Sanchez v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

in Matter of Jose Sanchez v. Kelly

56 A.D.2d 276, 866 N.Y.S.2d 569

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

DecidedNovember 6, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 276 (in Matter of Jose Sanchez 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

in Matter of Jose Sanchez v. Kelly, 56 A.D.2d 276, 866 N.Y.S.2d 569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated August 9, 2006, which, after a hearing, sustained charges against petitioner, a sergeant in the New York City Police Department, and recommended that petitioner forfeit 20 vacation 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 [Kibbie F. Payne, J.], entered on or about July 6, 2007), dismissed, without costs.

The findings that petitioner, in connection with an incident involving two uniformed, on-duty, intoxicated detectives, failed to prepare a fitness for duty report as directed by competent authority and failed to supervise the detectives are supported [277]*277by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc, v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181 [1978]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231-232 [1974]), including the testimony of the lieutenant who required petitioner’s assistance at the scene. No basis exists to disturb the hearing officer’s findings of credibility (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436 [1987]). Concur — Gonzalez, J.E, McGuire, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated August 9, 2006, which, after a hearing, sustained charges against petitioner, a sergeant in the New York City Police Department, and recommended that petitioner forfeit 20 vacation 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 [Kibbie F. Payne, J.], entered on or about July 6, 2007), dismissed, without costs.

The findings that petitioner, in connection with an incident involving two uniformed, on-duty, intoxicated detectives, failed to prepare a fitness for duty report as directed by competent authority and failed to supervise the detectives are supported [277]*277by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc, v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181 [1978]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231-232 [1974]), including the testimony of the lieutenant who required petitioner’s assistance at the scene. No basis exists to disturb the hearing officer’s findings of credibility (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436 [1987]). Concur — Gonzalez, J.E, McGuire, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 276, 866 N.Y.S.2d 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-matter-of-jose-sanchez-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack