Sacco v. Bratton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sacco v. Bratton

223 A.D.2d 497, 637 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 729

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 497 (Sacco v. Bratton) 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

Sacco v. Bratton, 223 A.D.2d 497, 637 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Commissioner, dated July 5,1994, finding that petitioner made an unauthorized radio transmission, and ordering that the petitioner forfeit five vacation days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by an order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Harold Tompkins, J.], entered April 10, 1995) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that petitioner made an unauthorized radio transmission, since his immediate supervisor, who heard the transmission broadcast over the radio, identified the voice as petitioner’s based upon her supervision of him during three tours of duty each week for approximately five months before the incident, which supervision entailed speaking with petitioner personally in the course of their respective duties (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-231). The Hearing Officer properly weighed conflicting, expert testimony (supra). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Commissioner, dated July 5,1994, finding that petitioner made an unauthorized radio transmission, and ordering that the petitioner forfeit five vacation days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by an order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Harold Tompkins, J.], entered April 10, 1995) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that petitioner made an unauthorized radio transmission, since his immediate supervisor, who heard the transmission broadcast over the radio, identified the voice as petitioner’s based upon her supervision of him during three tours of duty each week for approximately five months before the incident, which supervision entailed speaking with petitioner personally in the course of their respective duties (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-231). The Hearing Officer properly weighed conflicting, expert testimony (supra). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 497, 637 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sacco-v-bratton-nyappdiv-1996.