Opinion
May 17, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Helen Freedman, J.
This court's inquiry is limited to whether the determination by respondent Board is supported by substantial evidence. (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222.) Testimony and documentary evidence offered by the City of New York was that "hog-tying", a body-immobilizing restraint procedure prohibited by the directive, was neither taught during the training of police officers nor the subject of any prior directive, intradepartmental communication or manual. Further, the supervisor of the city's entire patrol force testified that in his 41 years of service he never saw "hog-tying" used and was not aware that it ever had been used by members of the Department. Thus, substantial evidence supports the respondent Board's conclusion that the directive did not constitute a change in existing Department policy and was not subject to collective bargaining.
Concur — Ross, J.P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.