The New York City Police Commissioner terminated Petitioner's service with the New York City Police Department [NYPD] after Petitioner was found guilty disciplinary charges that alleged that he struck his wife, brandished a pistol at her, threatened her and his minor son, and failed to report his arrest to the NYPD's Operations Unit.
Petitioner appealed the Commissioner's decision and the penalty imposed by the Police Commissioner.
The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed the Commissioner's decision, noting that the Hearing Officer's determinations that:
1. Hearsay statements of Petitioner's wife and son were credible;
2. Petitioner's testimony was not credible; and
3. That the photograph introduced by NYPD was sufficiently authenticated.
The court, citing Matter of Benjamin v Department of Housing Preserv. & Devel. of City of N.Y., 187 AD3d 433, also pointed out that Petitioner may not rely on a notification of disposition from the NYPD Transit Bureau's internal investigation, submitted for the first time with his petition, because "judicial review is limited to the facts and record adduced before the agency".
The Appellate Division also noted that it did not have the discretionary authority to review Petitioner's unpreserved challenges to the admission of sealed arrest records at the hearing, NYPD's reliance on Civil Service Law §75, or the Hearing Officer's representation of the evidence.
Considering Petitioner's challenge to the penalty imposed, termination of his employment with NYPD, the Appellate Division opined that "The penalty of termination does not shock one's sense of fairness in light of [Petitioner's] egregious conduct", citing Matter of Marks, 234 AD3d at 413; and Matter of Castillo v Shea, 226 AD3d 531, lv dismissed 42 NY3d 1071.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.