Quinn v. Kerik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quinn v. Kerik

305 A.D.2d 168, 757 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5267

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

DecidedMay 8, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 168 (Quinn v. Kerik) 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

Quinn v. Kerik, 305 A.D.2d 168, 757 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated July 11, 2001, which placed petitioner on probation dismissal for a period of one year pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 14-115 (d) and imposed upon petitioner a forfeiture of 30 vacation days, 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 [Rosalyn Richter, J.], entered March 12, 2002) dismissed, without costs.

The testimony of the complainants, duly credited by the administrative hearing officer (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]), constituted substantial evidence to support specifications charging petitioner with use of excessive force, discourtesy and committing a false arrest (see Matter of Miller v Kerik, 299 AD2d 267 [2002]). Accordingly, the determination finding petitioner guilty of such specifications may not be disturbed (see Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269, 270-271 [1976]). The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 39-40 [169]*169[2001]; Matter of Hickey v Ward, 161 AD2d 495 [1990]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated July 11, 2001, which placed petitioner on probation dismissal for a period of one year pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 14-115 (d) and imposed upon petitioner a forfeiture of 30 vacation days, 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 [Rosalyn Richter, J.], entered March 12, 2002) dismissed, without costs.

The testimony of the complainants, duly credited by the administrative hearing officer (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]), constituted substantial evidence to support specifications charging petitioner with use of excessive force, discourtesy and committing a false arrest (see Matter of Miller v Kerik, 299 AD2d 267 [2002]). Accordingly, the determination finding petitioner guilty of such specifications may not be disturbed (see Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269, 270-271 [1976]). The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 39-40 [169]*169[2001]; Matter of Hickey v Ward, 161 AD2d 495 [1990]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 168, 757 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinn-v-kerik-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack