Ward v. Bratton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ward v. Bratton

237 A.D.2d 204, 655 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2771

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 204 (Ward 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

Ward v. Bratton, 237 A.D.2d 204, 655 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about May 16, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination dismissing her from her position as a police officer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner was properly dismissed without a hearing, having agreed to disciplinary probation in satisfaction of departmental charges involving, inter alia, her relationship with an individual known to be involved in criminal activities, and, during the period of probation, having again associated with that individual before filing an untimely report of his crimes against her (see, Matter of Prestia v Brown, 191 AD2d 224). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about May 16, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination dismissing her from her position as a police officer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner was properly dismissed without a hearing, having agreed to disciplinary probation in satisfaction of departmental charges involving, inter alia, her relationship with an individual known to be involved in criminal activities, and, during the period of probation, having again associated with that individual before filing an untimely report of his crimes against her (see, Matter of Prestia v Brown, 191 AD2d 224). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 204, 655 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-bratton-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack