Wright v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wright v. Kelly

69 A.D.3d 501, 892 N.Y.2d 759

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 21, 2010·Published

Opinion

Substantial evidence, including eyewitness testimony, supports the hearing officer’s finding of guilt (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182 [1978]). In light of petitioner’s disciplinary record and the fact that the act of discourtesy occurred in the presence of at least two other sergeants, the penalty does not shock our conscience (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 39-40 [2001]; Matter of Sanders v Safir, 284 AD2d 163 [2001]). Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Substantial evidence, including eyewitness testimony, supports the hearing officer’s finding of guilt (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182 [1978]). In light of petitioner’s disciplinary record and the fact that the act of discourtesy occurred in the presence of at least two other sergeants, the penalty does not shock our conscience (see Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 39-40 [2001]; Matter of Sanders v Safir, 284 AD2d 163 [2001]). Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Sweeny, Catterson and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Wright v. Kelly, 69 A.D.3d 501, 892 N.Y.2d 759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

69 A.D.3d 501 (Wright v. Kelly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related