Opinion
November 8, 1993
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The finding of misconduct is supported by substantial evidence in the record. The testimony at the hearing established that the petitioner violated the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department Operations Procedures Guide by fraternizing with an inmate and continuing that relationship after the release of the inmate. The admission of the telephone records was not improper and did not violate the petitioner's due process rights. Compliance with strict rules of evidence and the strict rules of criminal law is not mandated in administrative proceedings (see, Matter of Heslop v Board of Educ., 191 A.D.2d 875; Matter of Block v Ambach, 73 N.Y.2d 323). Moreover, the determination was supported by substantial evidence even without the use of the telephone records (see, Matter of Sowa v Looney, 23 N.Y.2d 329; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176).
A police force is a quasi-military organization demanding strict discipline (see, Matter of De Bois v Rozzi, 114 A.D.2d 848) and great deference is to be accorded a determination regarding the internal discipline of its members (see, Richichi v Galligan, 136 A.D.2d 616). The petitioner's conduct cannot be condoned since such behavior poses a serious threat to the discipline and efficiency of the agency's operation (see, Matter of Billings v County of St. Lawrence, 139 A.D.2d 809, 811; Richichi v Galligan, supra). Under the circumstances, we find that the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be "shocking to one's sense of fairness" (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 234). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.