Opinion
March 13, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.
In reviewing the record, we find that there was substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's determination that petitioner, on two separate occasions, knowingly gave false testimony during a Grand Jury hearing. (See, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176.) It is undisputed that petitioner gave false testimony with respect to a drug possession and sale case in order to legitimize the circumstances of his search and arrest of the defendant. Thus, we reject petitioner's argument that the false testimony was not material to the function of the Grand Jury, and that his testimony should not have been considered perjurious. Petitioner's testimony indicating that he saw the defendant sell drugs clearly was false and certainly material to the element of intent to sell. Moreover, it meets the patrol guide's requirement that it be "knowingly" given.
Finally, the sanction imposed was not "`so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness.'" (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233.) Much deference is to be accorded to the agency's determination regarding the penalty imposed with respect to its own personnel. (See, Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 N.Y.2d 354, 360.) Petitioner's offense of knowingly giving false testimony before the Grand Jury (which, in fact, led to a defendant's indictment) clearly diminishes his credibility and reflects on his integrity as a police officer. Accordingly, petitioner's dismissal from police service was well within the Commissioner's proper discretion. (See, Matter of Barone v City of Dunkirk, 57 A.D.2d 1040, 1041, affd 45 N.Y.2d 876.)
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.