Farrell v. New York City Police Dept., Matter of
| Decision Date | 17 October 1975 |
| Citation | 37 N.Y.2d 843,378 N.Y.S.2d 35 |
| Parties | , 340 N.E.2d 469 In the Matter of Roosevelt FARRELL, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Jane B. Schneider, Albany, for appellant.
Adrian P. Burke, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Michael Ambrosio and L. Kevin Sheridan, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division, 44 A.D.2d 782, 355 N.Y.S.2d 99, should be affirmed.
Appellant's employment in the New York City Police Department was terminated at the expiration of his probationary period on July 31, 1970. The termination was made on the recommendation of the department's chief surgeon. The latter's recommendation was predicated in turn on knowledge that appellant had been under the medical care of his family doctor since November, 1963, who advised in June, 1969 that appellant had 'arterial hypertension with a blood pressure of about 1 50/70' and that 'a short systolic murmur is present'. It had also been reported to the chief surgeon that on his military induction questionnaire appellant had listed his physical condition as heart condition and blood pressure; that in January, 1967 appellant had appealed his Selective Service 1A classification on the ground of heart condition and blood pressure for which he was receiving treatment at the time; that later in the same month the Selective Service Board had been informed by appellant's family physician that appellant had been receiving treatment for heart condition and elevated blood pressure since November, 1963; that in January, 1968 appellant had been rejected for heart condition and blood pressure after a preinduction examination; and that he had been reclassified 4F in February, 1968. Incidentally the record discloses that appellant had informed the department in June, 1969 that he had 'never been treated for a heart condition or high blood pressure' and that he knew 'of no 4F Draft Classification'. And the chief surgeon had made his own examination of appellant on July 27, 1970 which disclosed a blood pressure in excess of that allowed by the department's medical standards.
Based on this evidence and notwithstanding the contradictory evidence submitted by appellant to establish his physical fitness, we agree that the termination of appellant's employment by the commissioner was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Codd v. Velger
... ... 51 L.Ed.2d 92 ... Michael J. CODD, Police Commissioner, City of New York, et al., ... 12 On this record, it cannot be said as a matter of law ... Page 639 ... that prospective ... See also In re Farrell v. New York City Police Dept., 44 A.D.2d 782, 355 ... ...
-
Talamo v. Murphy
...Police Commissioner and, accordingly, the action taken was neither arbitrary nor capricious (cf. Matter of Farrell v. New York City Police Dept., 37 N.Y.2d 843, 378 N.Y.S.2d 35, 340 N.E.2d 469). It should be noted that, contrary to the inference raised in the dissent at the Appellate Divisi......
-
Anonymous v. Codd
...nor capricious (see Matter of Talamo v. Murphy, 38 N.Y.2d 637, 38 N.Y.S.2d 3, 345 N.E.2d 546; Matter of Farrell v. New York City Police Dept., 37 N.Y.2d 843, 378 N.Y.S.2d 35, 340 N.E.2d 469). Also significant and supportive of respondent's decision is the fact that neither prior to nor upon......
-
Rest. Action Alliance NYC v. City of N.Y.
...made upon remand, was neither arbitrary and capricious nor without a rational basis (see Matter of Farrell v. New York City Police Dept., 37 N.Y.2d 843, 378 N.Y.S.2d 35, 340 N.E.2d 469 [1975] ; Matter of Partnership 92 LP & Bldg. Mgt. Co., Inc. v. State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Ren......