Villar v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Villar v. Kelly

82 A.D.3d 579, 918 N.Y.2d 494

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 22, 2011·Published

Opinion

Respondent’s determination to dismiss petitioner from the Police Department is supported by substantial evidence that petitioner wrongfully discussed and divulged official department business with a person known to the department (Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354 [1979]). Given the risk to the general public arising from the passing of sensitive information about a narcotics case to another subject of the same ongoing narcotics investigation, the penalty of dismissal does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]). Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

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

Respondent’s determination to dismiss petitioner from the Police Department is supported by substantial evidence that petitioner wrongfully discussed and divulged official department business with a person known to the department (Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354 [1979]). Given the risk to the general public arising from the passing of sensitive information about a narcotics case to another subject of the same ongoing narcotics investigation, the penalty of dismissal does not shock our sense of fairness (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]). Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Sweeny, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

Villar v. Kelly, 82 A.D.3d 579, 918 N.Y.2d 494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

82 A.D.3d 579 (Villar v. Kelly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related