LaFemina v. Brown

194 A.D.2d 405, 598 N.Y.S.2d 785
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 15, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 405 (LaFemina v. Brown) 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
LaFemina v. Brown, 194 A.D.2d 405, 598 N.Y.S.2d 785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

—Determination of respondent Police Commissioner dated October 31, 1991, which found petitioner guilty of unjustifiably striking a civilian and then lying to an investigator about the cause of the civilian’s injury, and suspended petitioner from his position as a police officer for a period of five days, is 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 [Shirley Fingerhood, J.], entered June 2, 1992), is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The hearing testimony of the investigator from the Civilian Complaint Investigative Bureau and the civilian’s medical records constitute substantial evidence supporting respondent’s finding that petitioner struck the civilian in the head. It is well settled that hearsay is admissible and may constitute substantial evidence in administrative hearings (People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139), and that "it is the function of the administrative agency rather than that of the reviewing court to weigh the evidence and resolve conflicting testimony” (Matter of Ferriso v Ward, 161 AD2d 289, 291, lv denied 76 NY2d 706). To find, as petitioner would have us do, that the evidence did not exclude with any reasonable certainty the possibility that the civilian sustained his injuries when his car abruptly stopped and his head struck the windshield or some [406]*406other hard object in the interior of the car, would be to substitute our judgment for that of respondent on the weight of the evidence. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Related

Jackson v. Kerik
3 A.D.3d 308 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Enander v. Kelly
306 A.D.2d 41 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
McDonald v. Safir
254 A.D.2d 234 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Saliba v. New York City Housing Authority
254 A.D.2d 202 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Spiratos v. Safir
249 A.D.2d 240 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Martinez v. Franco
222 A.D.2d 335 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 A.D.2d 405, 598 N.Y.S.2d 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lafemina-v-brown-nyappdiv-1993.