Evaluating the credibility of a witness in a disciplinary action
Jackson v McMahon, 275 AD2d 546
The Appellate Division upheld the disciplinary determinations and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of State Police on four troopers who were found guilty of misconduct and neglect of duty after being found sleeping in their patrol cars while on duty at about 3:30 in the morning.
The troopers had stopped the two patrol cars in which they were riding to set up radar surveillance during the early morning and were found asleep during a random check by their supervisor. The Disciplinary Board found them guilty of charges of misconduct and neglect of duty and recommended penalties ranging from suspension without pay for ten days and censure to suspension for twenty days and censure for this misconduct. The Superintendent adopted the Board’s findings and recommendations.
The troopers appealed their being found guilty of the charges and the penalties imposed, alleging that Disciplinary Board’s determinations were not supported by substantial evidence.
The Appellate Division rejected their claims, holding that its review of the record indicated that the supervisor gave detailed testimony concerning his observations of troopers that indicated that the four were asleep while performing his supervisory check.
True, said the court, the troopers denied that they were sleeping when approached by the supervisor. True, said the court, the troopers submitted testimony casting doubt on the accuracy of the supervisor’s observations. This, however, presented a question of credibility, which the Board was free to resolve against troopers and the court declined to substitute its judgment for that of the Board and the Superintendent.
The Appellate Division said that the test applied [i]n assessing whether an administrative decision is supported by substantial evidence is whether the finding is supported by the type of evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached, citing Doolittle v McMahon, 245 AD2d 736. Under these standards, the court said that it could not say that the supervisor’s testimony did not support the findings of guilt and declined to disturb the Board’s determinations.
As to the penalties imposed, the court said that much deference is to be afforded to an agency’s determination regarding a sanction, especially in situations where, as here, matters of internal discipline in a law enforcement organization are concerned, quoting from Santos v Chesworth, 133 AD2d 1001. Considering the particular circumstances presented in this case, the court said that it did not find the penalties imposed upon troopers so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL
Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: email@example.com.