Mahadio v. Kerik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mahadio v. Kerik

298 A.D.2d 305, 748 N.Y.S.2d 494, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10207

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

DecidedOctober 29, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 305 (Mahadio v. Kerik) 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

Mahadio v. Kerik, 298 A.D.2d 305, 748 N.Y.S.2d 494, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated March 9, 2001, imposing upon petitioner a forfeiture of 25 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 [Jane Solomon, J.J, entered October 9, 2001), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182) supports respondent’s findings that petitioner, while off duty, wrongfully and without just cause displayed his weapon while making a threatening remark to a civilian employee of the store, and that he addressed persons in the store in an ethnically offensive manner. No basis exists to disturb respondent’s findings of credibility (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Lerner, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated March 9, 2001, imposing upon petitioner a forfeiture of 25 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 [Jane Solomon, J.J, entered October 9, 2001), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182) supports respondent’s findings that petitioner, while off duty, wrongfully and without just cause displayed his weapon while making a threatening remark to a civilian employee of the store, and that he addressed persons in the store in an ethnically offensive manner. No basis exists to disturb respondent’s findings of credibility (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 305, 748 N.Y.S.2d 494, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahadio-v-kerik-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack