Robinson v. Lucas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. Lucas

186 A.D.2d 136

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 136 (Robinson v. Lucas) 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

Robinson v. Lucas, 186 A.D.2d 136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal pursuant to the Charter of the City of Mount Vernon § 129 (L 1922, ch 490), from a determination of the Commissioner of Public Safety of the City of Mount Vernon, dated November 13, 1989, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of violating chapter 27/ 14 and 27/24 of the Rules and Regulations of the Mount Vernon Police Department, and imposed the sanction of dismissal.

Adjudged that the determination is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination under review was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of De Milo v Department of Pub. Safety, 84 AD2d 538). Under the circumstances, we do not find the penalty imposed to be so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222; Matter of Alfieri v Murphy, 38 NY2d 976). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal pursuant to the Charter of the City of Mount Vernon § 129 (L 1922, ch 490), from a determination of the Commissioner of Public Safety of the City of Mount Vernon, dated November 13, 1989, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of violating chapter 27/ 14 and 27/24 of the Rules and Regulations of the Mount Vernon Police Department, and imposed the sanction of dismissal.

Adjudged that the determination is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination under review was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of De Milo v Department of Pub. Safety, 84 AD2d 538). Under the circumstances, we do not find the penalty imposed to be so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222; Matter of Alfieri v Murphy, 38 NY2d 976). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-lucas-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack