Putorti v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Putorti v. Safir

249 A.D.2d 207, 671 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686

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

DecidedApril 28, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 207 (Putorti 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

Putorti v. Safir, 249 A.D.2d 207, 671 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent Police Commissioner of the City of New York, dated March 28, 1996, which dismissed petitioner from his position 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 [Marylin Diamond, J.], entered January 24, 1997) dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s argument that evidence adduced against him was unconstitutionally obtained was never advanced by him at his administrative hearing and we decline to consider it for the first time on article 78 review (see, Matter of Sowa v Looney, 23 NY2d 329, 333; Matter of Jemrock Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 245 AD2d 92). Had the argument been appropriately preserved, however, we would find it to be without merit. Nor is there merit to petitioner’s argument that the reviewed determination should be annulled because of the Hearing Commissioner’s decision not to exclude certain evidence as to which an unbroken chain of custody had not been established. The Hearing Commissioner’s decision upon this evidentiary matter did not deprive petitioner of a fair hearing (see, Matter of Cacchillo v Perales, 172 AD2d 98, 101-102). Finally, our review of the hearing record indicates that the challenged determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Miller v DeBuono, 90 NY2d 783, 793). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent Police Commissioner of the City of New York, dated March 28, 1996, which dismissed petitioner from his position 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 [Marylin Diamond, J.], entered January 24, 1997) dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner’s argument that evidence adduced against him was unconstitutionally obtained was never advanced by him at his administrative hearing and we decline to consider it for the first time on article 78 review (see, Matter of Sowa v Looney, 23 NY2d 329, 333; Matter of Jemrock Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 245 AD2d 92). Had the argument been appropriately preserved, however, we would find it to be without merit. Nor is there merit to petitioner’s argument that the reviewed determination should be annulled because of the Hearing Commissioner’s decision not to exclude certain evidence as to which an unbroken chain of custody had not been established. The Hearing Commissioner’s decision upon this evidentiary matter did not deprive petitioner of a fair hearing (see, Matter of Cacchillo v Perales, 172 AD2d 98, 101-102). Finally, our review of the hearing record indicates that the challenged determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Miller v DeBuono, 90 NY2d 783, 793). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 207, 671 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putorti-v-safir-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack