Matter of Martinez v. Bratton

2018 NY Slip Op 1536
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 8, 2018
Docket101282/16 5917A 5917
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 1536 (Matter of Martinez v. Bratton) 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
Matter of Martinez v. Bratton, 2018 NY Slip Op 1536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Matter of Martinez v Bratton (2018 NY Slip Op 01536)
Matter of Martinez v Bratton
2018 NY Slip Op 01536
Decided on March 8, 2018
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on March 8, 2018
Renwick, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Kapnick, Kahn, JJ.

101282/16 5917A 5917

[*1] In re Nikaurys Martinez, et al., Petitioners,

v

William J. Bratton, etc., et al., Respondents.


Worth, Longworth & London, LLP, New York (Howard B. Sterinbach of counsel), for petitioners.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondents.



Determinations of respondents, dated June 23, 2016, which imposed forfeitures of 15 vacation days on petitioners based upon a finding that they improperly struck a civilian, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Arlene P. Bluth, J.], entered January 31, 2017), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioners struck a civilian while he was rear-handcuffed (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights , 45 NY2d 176, 180—181 [1978]). The unequivocal eyewitness testimony of a police sergeant, which was credited by the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Trials, and was supported by her contemporaneous report of the incident to the Internal Affairs Bureau, established petitioners' guilt. There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Trials (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward , 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]; Matter of Kissh v Kerik , 304 AD2d 332 [1st Dept 2003]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 8, 2018

CLERK



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

Related

300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v. State Division of Human Rights
379 N.E.2d 1183 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Berenhaus v. Ward
517 N.E.2d 193 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
Kissh v. Kerik
304 A.D.2d 332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 1536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-martinez-v-bratton-nyappdiv-2018.