Maloney v. Suardy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maloney v. Suardy

202 A.D.2d 297, 609 N.Y.S.2d 179

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 297 (Maloney v. Suardy) 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

Maloney v. Suardy, 202 A.D.2d 297, 609 N.Y.S.2d 179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent New York City Transit Authority, dated May 23, 1991, which, after a hearing, terminated petitioner’s employment upon a finding that he violated certain departmental rules and regulations, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division by order of Supreme Court, Kings County [Julius Vinick, J.], entered on or about January 22, 1992), is dismissed without costs or disbursements.

The charges sustained were supported by substantial evidence. It was within the Hearing Officer’s province to credit the testimony of the eyewitness together with the hearsay testimony of the store clerk and his assistant that petitioner menaced the clerk with his firearm, and to find that petitioner discharged his firearm without authorization (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Petitioner’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Additionally, we note that after full disclosure by counsel of the theoretical conflict of interest allegedly presented by representation, petitioner consented. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent New York City Transit Authority, dated May 23, 1991, which, after a hearing, terminated petitioner’s employment upon a finding that he violated certain departmental rules and regulations, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division by order of Supreme Court, Kings County [Julius Vinick, J.], entered on or about January 22, 1992), is dismissed without costs or disbursements.

The charges sustained were supported by substantial evidence. It was within the Hearing Officer’s province to credit the testimony of the eyewitness together with the hearsay testimony of the store clerk and his assistant that petitioner menaced the clerk with his firearm, and to find that petitioner discharged his firearm without authorization (see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). Petitioner’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Additionally, we note that after full disclosure by counsel of the theoretical conflict of interest allegedly presented by representation, petitioner consented. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 297, 609 N.Y.S.2d 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maloney-v-suardy-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack