Potter v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Potter v. Safir

284 A.D.2d 156, 728 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6151

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

DecidedJune 12, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 156 (Potter v. Safir) 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

Potter v. Safir, 284 A.D.2d 156, 728 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, dated March 3, 2000, which imposed a forfeiture of 20 vacation days, upon a finding, after a hearing, that petitioner unjustifiably and without provocation struck an individual with a nightstick, 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 [Jane Solomon, J.], entered September 15, 2000), dismissed, without costs.

[157]*157Substantial evidence, including the testimony of the complainant and corroborative testimony by other witnesses, supports respondent’s findings that petitioner, without provocation or just cause, repeatedly struck an individual with a nightstick during the course of an arrest (see, Matter of Edwards v Safir, 282 AD2d 287). The penalty imposed is not shocking to our sense of fairness, particularly in view of the seriousness of the offense (see, Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, dated March 3, 2000, which imposed a forfeiture of 20 vacation days, upon a finding, after a hearing, that petitioner unjustifiably and without provocation struck an individual with a nightstick, 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 [Jane Solomon, J.], entered September 15, 2000), dismissed, without costs.

[157]*157Substantial evidence, including the testimony of the complainant and corroborative testimony by other witnesses, supports respondent’s findings that petitioner, without provocation or just cause, repeatedly struck an individual with a nightstick during the course of an arrest (see, Matter of Edwards v Safir, 282 AD2d 287). The penalty imposed is not shocking to our sense of fairness, particularly in view of the seriousness of the offense (see, Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 156, 728 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-v-safir-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack