From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harge v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
May 28, 2020
183 A.D.3d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

11569 11569A Index 150868/19

05-28-2020

IN RE Dana HARGE, Petitioner, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

The Law Office of Fred Lichtmacher P.C., New York (Fred Lichtmacher of counsel), for petitioner. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Lorenzo DiSilvio of counsel), for respondent.


The Law Office of Fred Lichtmacher P.C., New York (Fred Lichtmacher of counsel), for petitioner.

James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Lorenzo DiSilvio of counsel), for respondent.

Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Gesmer, Oing, JJ.

Determinations of respondent, dated September 25, 2018, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of multiple New York City Police Department patrol guide violations arising from five separate incidents, and ordered a one-year dismissal probation, forfeiture of 31 suspension days already served, and forfeiture of 20 vacation days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Carol R. Edmead, J.], entered on or about April 8, 2019) dismissed, without costs.

All charges sustained are supported by substantial evidence in the record (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978] ). We find no reason to overturn the assistant deputy commissioner's credibility determinations, which are "largely unreviewable" (see Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193 [1987] ). As for the charges arising from an alleged domestic violence incident, "[i]t is well-settled that hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings, that it may be the basis for an administrative determination and—if sufficiently relevant and probative—may constitute substantial evidence alone" ( Matter of Rosa v. New York City Hous. Auth., Straus Houses, 160 A.D.3d 499, 500, 76 N.Y.S.3d 5 [1st Dept. 2018] ).

We do not find the penalty to be so disproportionate as to shocks one's sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] ; Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 14–115[a], [d] ).


Summaries of

Harge v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
May 28, 2020
183 A.D.3d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Harge v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:In re Dana Harge, Petitioner, v. City of New York, Respondent.

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: May 28, 2020

Citations

183 A.D.3d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 3075
122 N.Y.S.3d 893

Citing Cases

Harge v. City of New York

Harge is also collaterally estopped from re-litigating the motive behind the several disciplinary actions…