A police detective [Petitioner] was served with disciplinary charges alleging he had anonymously filed a false allegation of misconduct targeting one of his supervisors with the police department's [Department] Internal Affairs Bureau [IAB]. Petitioner subsequently admitted the allegations set out in the charges and pleaded guilty to two instances of "conduct prejudicial to the good order of the department" and then "testified under oath before the Assistant Deputy Commissioner [ADC] in an effort to mitigate the penalty to be imposed.
Following a disciplinary hearing, the ADC found that Petitioner's "misconduct here constitutes extremely serious misconduct" and recommended the Police Commissioner dismiss Petitioner from his position. The Commissioner adopted the ADC's findings and recommendation and dismissed Petitioner from the Department.
Petitioner filed a CPLR Article 78 appeal challenging the penalty imposed by the Commissioner. Supreme Court granted his petition and vacated penalty of termination from the Department and remanded the matter for the imposition of a less severe penalty. The Department appealed and the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's decision, on the law, and dismissed Petitioner's Article 78 action.
The Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court "erred in granting the petition to the extent of remanding the matter for the imposition of a lesser penalty." Citing Kelly v Safir , 96 NY2d 32, the court said that in matters of police discipline "great leeway must be accorded to the Commissioner's determinations concerning the appropriate punishment, for it is the Commissioner, not the courts, who is accountable to the public for the integrity of the Department."
The decision notes that Petitioner "lied to IAB twice, acted with premeditation, and sought to have the [supervisor] that he reported to IAB face negative consequences as a result." As the ADC noted in the decision issued following Petitioner's disciplinary hearing, Petitioner's untruths:
[1] had an adverse impact on the supervisor, who had to defend himself against the false claim; and
[2] required the Department and IAB to spend significant time investigating Petitioner's false complaint.
The Appellate Division said that in Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, the Court of Appeals, quoting from Pell v Board of Education of Union Free School District. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale and Mamaroneck, 34 NY2d 222, held that in adjudicating disciplinary matters the penalty imposed by the appointing authority "must be upheld unless it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law."
Considering the record, the Appellate Division concluded that the Commissioner's imposing the penalty of termination was not so disproportionate to the offenses committed by Petitioner as to shock one's sense of fairness and the vacated the Supreme Court's order and dismissed the Article 78 petition "in its entirety."
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_01716.htm
________________________
A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances
Determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/7401.html
________________________