Fitness of a witness determined by the credibility of his or her testimony
Goodman v Safir, 259 A.D.2d 344
In the Goodman case, the Appellate Division considered the value of testimony provided by “corrupt former employees” called by the employer as witnesses against another employee in a disciplinary action.
New York City police officer Keith Goodman was terminated from his position after being found guilty of participating in unlawful searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution on a number of occasions. Goodman challenged his dismissal, contending that there was no substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s action because, Goodman alleged, a number of the witnesses testifying against him were corrupt former police officers.
The Appellate Division dismissed Goodman’s appeal, commenting that it found “no reason to disturb [the Commissioner’s] credibility findings rejecting [Goodman’s] version of the events.” The fact that some of the witnesses testifying for the employer were characterized by Goodman as “corrupt former police officers” did not mean that their testimony was not “substantial” insofar as the Appellate Division was concerned.
Finding that the penalty of dismissal did not shock its sense of fairness, the Appellate Division sustained the commissioner’s determination and his terminating Goodman from his position.
NYPPL