From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Murillo v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 2, 2005
19 A.D.3d 105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

6217.

June 2, 2005.

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated November 10, 2003, imposing a 22-day suspension without pay and the 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 the Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered April 16, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

Worth Longworth London, LLP, New York (Howard B. Sterinbach of counsel), for petitioner.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Fay Ng of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.


Substantial evidence supports respondent's finding that petitioner failed to comply with a lawful order to attempt firearm qualification. The record evidence shows that prior to the order's issuance a departmental physician reviewed the relevant medical information, including the letters of petitioner's doctor, and determined that petitioner was medically capable of attempting firearm qualification ( see Matter of Rivera v. Beekman, 86 AD2d 1).

The penalty of suspension without pay for 22 days and forfeiture of 20 vacation days does not shock our sense of fairness ( see Matter of Kelly v. Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38).


Summaries of

In the Matter of Murillo v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 2, 2005
19 A.D.3d 105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

In the Matter of Murillo v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CARMEN MURILLO, Petitioner, v. RAYMOND W. KELLY, as…

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

Date published: Jun 2, 2005

Citations

19 A.D.3d 105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
795 N.Y.S.2d 590