Truckenbrodt v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Truckenbrodt v. Smith

19 A.D.2d 907, 244 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2830

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 907 (Truckenbrodt v. Smith) 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

Truckenbrodt v. Smith, 19 A.D.2d 907, 244 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

'Proceeding under article 78 of the former Civil Practice Act: (1) to annul a determination of the respondent Board of Trustees of the Village of Searsdale, made December 27, 1962 after a hearing, dismissing petitioner from his position as a police officer of said village, effective December 4, 1962; and (2) to restore him to said position. Determination modified on the facts and in the exercise of discretion by reducing the punishment imposed from a dismissal to a suspension without pay for a period of six months commencing as of November 27, 1962. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. Petitioner was charged with and found guilty of violating certain departmental regulations in that on two occasions he used an official police patrol car outside the village limits for unauthorized purposes. In the light of the express assignment to petitioner of the patrol car in question, its use by him was warranted for police duty but not for unofficial purposes. Irrespective of whether he ever received a [908]*908copy of the rules and regulations, the fact remains that he had been a policeman for about 14 years; that he knew of the existence of regulations; and that he knew or should have known that his use of the patrol car for personal purposes while on active official duty and his conduct in driving the ear not only away from his post but outside the village limits, was a violation of his duty and of the regulations. Under all the pertinent circumstances, however, including the nature of the offense and the petitioner’s prior service record, it is our opinion that a dismissal was excessive punishment and that the penalty of suspension hereby imposed is adequate (CPLR, § 7803, subd. 3; former Civ. Prae. Act, § 1296, subd. 5-a). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

'Proceeding under article 78 of the former Civil Practice Act: (1) to annul a determination of the respondent Board of Trustees of the Village of Searsdale, made December 27, 1962 after a hearing, dismissing petitioner from his position as a police officer of said village, effective December 4, 1962; and (2) to restore him to said position. Determination modified on the facts and in the exercise of discretion by reducing the punishment imposed from a dismissal to a suspension without pay for a period of six months commencing as of November 27, 1962. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. Petitioner was charged with and found guilty of violating certain departmental regulations in that on two occasions he used an official police patrol car outside the village limits for unauthorized purposes. In the light of the express assignment to petitioner of the patrol car in question, its use by him was warranted for police duty but not for unofficial purposes. Irrespective of whether he ever received a [908]*908copy of the rules and regulations, the fact remains that he had been a policeman for about 14 years; that he knew of the existence of regulations; and that he knew or should have known that his use of the patrol car for personal purposes while on active official duty and his conduct in driving the ear not only away from his post but outside the village limits, was a violation of his duty and of the regulations. Under all the pertinent circumstances, however, including the nature of the offense and the petitioner’s prior service record, it is our opinion that a dismissal was excessive punishment and that the penalty of suspension hereby imposed is adequate (CPLR, § 7803, subd. 3; former Civ. Prae. Act, § 1296, subd. 5-a). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 907, 244 N.Y.S.2d 1013, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/truckenbrodt-v-smith-nyappdiv-1963.