Matter of Vincent v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Vincent v. Kelly

126 A.D.3d 414, 2 N.Y.S.3d 340

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2015

Docket14381 100604/13

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 414 (Matter of Vincent 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

Matter of Vincent v. Kelly, 126 A.D.3d 414, 2 N.Y.S.3d 340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated February 8, 2013, which, insofar as challenged, approved the Hearing Officer’s findings that petitioner had engaged in misconduct, and imposed a penalty of forfeiture of 30 vacation days, a 30-day suspension, without pay, and a one-year dismissal probation period, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New *415 York County [Carol E. Huff, J.], entered Nov. 14, 2013), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the findings that petitioner had refused to cooperate with a Port Authority Police Department (PAPD) investigation, and that he gave vague and nonresponsive answers at a subsequent interview by respondent New York City Police Department (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-182 [1978]). There is no evidence that respondents sought to obtain a statement from petitioner through the PAPD; accordingly, petitioner’s argument regarding that statement is unavailing.

The imposed penalty does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]).

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated February 8, 2013, which, insofar as challenged, approved the Hearing Officer’s findings that petitioner had engaged in misconduct, and imposed a penalty of forfeiture of 30 vacation days, a 30-day suspension, without pay, and a one-year dismissal probation period, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New *415 York County [Carol E. Huff, J.], entered Nov. 14, 2013), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the findings that petitioner had refused to cooperate with a Port Authority Police Department (PAPD) investigation, and that he gave vague and nonresponsive answers at a subsequent interview by respondent New York City Police Department (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-182 [1978]). There is no evidence that respondents sought to obtain a statement from petitioner through the PAPD; accordingly, petitioner’s argument regarding that statement is unavailing.

The imposed penalty does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]).

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 414, 2 N.Y.S.3d 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-vincent-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack