From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ross v. Bringewatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1987
134 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

November 10, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.


Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed without costs. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to our court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), petitioner, a City of Rochester firefighter, seeks to annul a determination of respondent, Commissioner of Public Safety of the City of Rochester, which found him guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from employment. The charges against petitioner arise out of an incident that occurred on July 12, 1985 when he was assigned to "watch duty" and was responsible for receiving alarms and alerting other firefighters at Engine 7. During petitioner's watch, a dispatcher at the Emergency Communications Center received a request for assistance regarding a possible heart attack. The dispatcher attempted to contact Engine 7 but received no acknowledgement. Repeated efforts were made to contact Engine 7 by making two telephone calls on the direct line, one three-ring Centrex call, and four supplemental radio transmissions before Engine 7 responded to the dispatcher's radio broadcast. Petitioner's failure to answer these calls while on watch and thus his failure to receive and report the alarms supports the finding that he failed to give suitable attention to the performance of his duty. Petitioner's guilt is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176).

The Rochester Fire Department is charged with providing emergency assistance to the public and minutes are often crucial to the effective discharge of its duties. Petitioner's breach resulted in a significant delay in response to a request for assistance. In view of the serious nature of petitioner's misconduct and his history of previous disciplinary violations, the penalty of dismissal cannot be said to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (Matter of Doino v. Laehy, 100 A.D.2d 744, affd 63 N.Y.2d 663).


Summaries of

Matter of Ross v. Bringewatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1987
134 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Matter of Ross v. Bringewatt

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOHN C. ROSS, Petitioner, v. PAUL BRINGEWATT, as…

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

Date published: Nov 10, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Schuttak v. Board of Trustees for Endicott

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion that petitioner was guilty of charge…

Matter of Ross v. Bringewatt

Decided March 17, 1988 Appeal from (4th dept: 134 A.D.2d 913) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO…