Matter of Williams v. Police Dep't of the City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Williams v. Police Dep't of the City of New York

409 N.E.2d 936, 50 N.Y.2d 956, 431 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2505

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 24, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 409 N.E.2d 936 (Matter of Williams v. Police Dep't of the City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Williams v. Police Dep't of the City of New York, 409 N.E.2d 936, 50 N.Y.2d 956, 431 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2505 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs.

Initially it should be noted that the Appellate Division, although it modified the penalty imposed by the police com *958 missioner, nevertheless sustained the charge against the petitioner: failure to make entries in his memo book accounting for his patrol activities as required by the department’s patrol guide. On its face the penalty imposed — dismissal—might seem disproportionate to the gravity of the offense. However, the petitioner’s record with the police department reveals a long history of serious misconduct. At the time of the infraction with which this proceeding is concerned the petitioner was on disciplinary probation, for the fourth time, and was expressly warned that any violation of the patrol guide during the period of probation would lead to dismissal.

In determining the appropriate penalty, the commissioner was justified in examining the petitioner’s prior disciplinary record and, under these circumstances, it may not be said that the penalty imposed was so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order reversed, with costs, and the determination of the police commissioner reinstated in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs.

Initially it should be noted that the Appellate Division, although it modified the penalty imposed by the police com *958 missioner, nevertheless sustained the charge against the petitioner: failure to make entries in his memo book accounting for his patrol activities as required by the department’s patrol guide. On its face the penalty imposed — dismissal—might seem disproportionate to the gravity of the offense. However, the petitioner’s record with the police department reveals a long history of serious misconduct. At the time of the infraction with which this proceeding is concerned the petitioner was on disciplinary probation, for the fourth time, and was expressly warned that any violation of the patrol guide during the period of probation would lead to dismissal.

In determining the appropriate penalty, the commissioner was justified in examining the petitioner’s prior disciplinary record and, under these circumstances, it may not be said that the penalty imposed was so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order reversed, with costs, and the determination of the police commissioner reinstated in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 N.E.2d 936, 50 N.Y.2d 956, 431 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-williams-v-police-dept-of-the-city-of-new-york-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack