Martinez v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martinez v. Kelly

24 A.D.3d 186, 806 N.Y.S.2d 195

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

DecidedDecember 8, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 186 (Martinez 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

Martinez v. Kelly, 24 A.D.3d 186, 806 N.Y.S.2d 195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Commissioner, dated March 30, 2004, terminating petitioner from his 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 the Supreme Court, New York County [Doris Ling-Cohan, J], entered October 28, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

The hearing officer’s findings that petitioner solicited and took cash from two motorists after he had stopped them and threatened to issue summonses to them for purported traffic violations, was supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-180 [1978]), including the duly credited testimony of the two complaining motorists (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32 [2001]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Commissioner, dated March 30, 2004, terminating petitioner from his 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 the Supreme Court, New York County [Doris Ling-Cohan, J], entered October 28, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

The hearing officer’s findings that petitioner solicited and took cash from two motorists after he had stopped them and threatened to issue summonses to them for purported traffic violations, was supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-180 [1978]), including the duly credited testimony of the two complaining motorists (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32 [2001]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 186, 806 N.Y.S.2d 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack