O'Connell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Connell v. City of New York

236 A.D.2d 273, 653 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1256

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 18, 1997·Published

Opinion

—Determina[274] tion of respondent Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, dated July 7, 1994, which dismissed petitioner from his employment as a 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 [Stanley Sklar, J.], entered on or about June 15, 1995), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including the testimony of the store manager who apprehended petitioner outside the store that petitioner had left without having paid for the lawn mower in his possession, as well as petitioner’s own written, lawyer-drafted statement admitting that he "did in fact have said lawn mower outside of the * * * store without permission or authority to do so”, supports respondent’s finding that petitioner was guilty of attempting to steal the lawn mower. The penalty of dismissal does not shock our sense of fairness (see, Matter of Alfieri v Murphy, 38 NY2d 976). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Determina[274] tion of respondent Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, dated July 7, 1994, which dismissed petitioner from his employment as a 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 [Stanley Sklar, J.], entered on or about June 15, 1995), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including the testimony of the store manager who apprehended petitioner outside the store that petitioner had left without having paid for the lawn mower in his possession, as well as petitioner’s own written, lawyer-drafted statement admitting that he "did in fact have said lawn mower outside of the * * * store without permission or authority to do so”, supports respondent’s finding that petitioner was guilty of attempting to steal the lawn mower. The penalty of dismissal does not shock our sense of fairness (see, Matter of Alfieri v Murphy, 38 NY2d 976). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

O'Connell v. City of New York, 236 A.D.2d 273, 653 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

236 A.D.2d 273 (O'Connell v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related