Opinion
March 26, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Harold Tompkins, J.].
Substantial evidence supports respondent Police Commissioner's determination that petitioners, having responded to a radio run of drugs being sold, encountered complainants who were engaged in gambling activity and took money from them at gunpoint. Inconsistencies in the testimony of the complaining witnesses did no more than raise issues of credibility to be resolved by the Hearing Officer (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444). Nor were petitioners deprived of a fair hearing because of the Hearing Officer's refusal to allow further cross-examination of complainant Cheathem's drug and weapon conviction, the nature and extent of cross-examination being a matter within her sound discretion (Badr v Hogan, 75 N.Y.2d 629, 634). Finally, the record is devoid of any evidence of bias on the part of the Hearing Officer.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Smith, JJ.