Opinion
11-13-2015
In the Matter of Christian HANLON, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE POLICE, Respondent.
Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP, Lake Success (Eric Broutman of Counsel), for Petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of Counsel), for Respondent. PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.
Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara & Wolf, LLP, Lake Success (Eric Broutman of Counsel), for Petitioner.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination finding him guilty of disciplinary charges and terminating his employment as a State Trooper following a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75. We reject petitioner's contention that certain charges were time-barred pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75(4). Pursuant to that statute, a disciplinary action must be commenced within 18 months of the occurrence of the “alleged incompetency or misconduct complained of”; however, if the misconduct charged “would, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime,” the 18–month limitation does not apply (id.; see Matter of Langler v. County of Cayuga, 68 A.D.3d 1775, 1776, 892 N.Y.S.2d 697; Matter of Mieles v. Safir, 272 A.D.2d 199, 199, 707 N.Y.S.2d 437). Here, the charges alleged conduct that would, if proved, constitute the crime of official misconduct (Penal Law § 195.00) and, therefore, they are not time-barred (see Matter of McFarland v. Abate, 203 A.D.2d 190, 190, 611 N.Y.S.2d 153). Contrary to petitioner's further contentions, the determination is supported by substantial evidence, and the penalty is not shocking to one's sense of fairness (see Matter of Tessiero v. Bennett, 50 A.D.3d 1368, 1369–1370, 857 N.Y.S.2d 272; Matter of Wilburn v. McMahon, 296 A.D.2d 805, 806–807, 745 N.Y.S.2d 615). Finally, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's requested discovery inasmuch as petitioner failed to demonstrate that discovery was necessary (see Matter of Bramble v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 125 A.D.3d 856, 857, 4 N.Y.S.3d 238; see generally CPLR 408, 7804[a] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.