Vinton v. Bratton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vinton v. Bratton

213 A.D.2d 183, 623 N.Y.S.2d 233

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 183 (Vinton 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

Vinton v. Bratton, 213 A.D.2d 183, 623 N.Y.S.2d 233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent New York City Police Commissioner, dated November 23, 1993, suspending petitioner for 20 days followed by a one year probation 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 [Joan Lobis, J.], entered July 21, 1994), dismissed, without costs.

Testimony adduced at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing that petitioner wilfully filed a criminal complaint affidavit falsely affirming that he was the arresting officer and that he witnessed the crimes perpetrated by the individual arrested constitutes substantial evidence justifying respondents’ determination to suspend petitioner (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Considering the seriousness of the charges, the penalty was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of conscience (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra, at 233). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent New York City Police Commissioner, dated November 23, 1993, suspending petitioner for 20 days followed by a one year probation 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 [Joan Lobis, J.], entered July 21, 1994), dismissed, without costs.

Testimony adduced at petitioner’s disciplinary hearing that petitioner wilfully filed a criminal complaint affidavit falsely affirming that he was the arresting officer and that he witnessed the crimes perpetrated by the individual arrested constitutes substantial evidence justifying respondents’ determination to suspend petitioner (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Considering the seriousness of the charges, the penalty was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of conscience (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra, at 233). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 183, 623 N.Y.S.2d 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vinton-v-bratton-nyappdiv-1995.