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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 12, 2001·Published

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.

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

284 A.D.2d 156 (Potter v. Safir) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related