From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dilauria v. Police Commrs. Town of Harrison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 2, 2001
285 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued April 26, 2001.

July 2, 2001.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Police Commissioners of the Town of Harrison dated March 29, 2000, which, after a hearing, found the petitioner guilty of charges of misconduct, and terminated his employment as a police officer of the Town of Harrison Police Department.

Jeffrey M. Bernbach, New York, N.Y., for petitioner.

Joseph L. Latwin, Harrison, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION JUDGMENT

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Chief David Hall directed the petitioner to report for duty to Lieutenant Michael Kamensky on December 3, 1999, at 9:00 A.M. Although the petitioner appeared outside of Lieutenant Kamensky's office on that day shortly after 9:00 A.M., he did not report for duty as directed. The petitioner was then informed by Lieutenant Kamensky that they were going to meet with Chief Hall. At the time, Lieutenant Kamensky did not know that the petitioner was assigned to him. At the meeting, the petitioner asked Chief Hall if he could have the day off. Chief Hall denied the request, advised Lieutenant Kamensky that the petitioner was assigned to him for duty, and issued an order directing the petitioner to report for a fit-for-duty examination at 2:00 P.M. The petitioner threw the order on Chief Hall's desk and stormed out of the meeting. Lieutenant Kamensky did not see the petitioner again on December 3, 1999, and he did not appear for the fit-for-duty examination. Thus, the finding that the petitioner disobeyed two lawful orders given to him by Chief Hall is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135, 140; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179).

The penalty of dismissal is not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Casey v. New York City Tr. Auth., 175 A.D.2d 128). This is especially so since the petitioner had previously been suspended for disobeying an order, and police departments are quasi-military organizations requiring strict discipline (see, DiCairano v. Gandolfo, 201 A.D.2d 727; Matter of Coyle v. Rozzi, 199 A.D.2d 391; Matter of Keogh v. Dolce, 84 A.D.2d 579).

GOLDSTEIN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, FEUERSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Dilauria v. Police Commrs. Town of Harrison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 2, 2001
285 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Dilauria v. Police Commrs. Town of Harrison

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF STEVEN DiLAURIA, petitioner, v. POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 2, 2001

Citations

285 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
727 N.Y.S.2d 335

Citing Cases

O'Connor v. Cutting

We are mindful that great leeway must be accorded in matters concerning police discipline because "a higher…

Edwards v. City of New York

The penalty of termination imposed in this case does not shock the judicial conscience. The petitioner had…