Gissi v. Codd, 74-C-640.

Decision Date20 May 1974
Docket NumberNo. 74-C-640.,74-C-640.
Citation391 F. Supp. 1333
PartiesFrank J. GISSI, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. CODD, Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Harold B. Foner, Brooklyn, N. Y. and Ira Leitel, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

Adrian P. Burke, Corp. Counsel of the City of New York, New York City, by Gayle Redford, Asst. Corp. Counsel, New York City, and Maurice Neco, Deputy Police Commissioner for Legal Affairs, of counsel, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

JUDD, District Judge.

Plaintiff has moved for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Police Department rules which have been applied so as to require him to remain in his apartment while he is on sick leave, except during hours specified by the District Surgeon and on occasions when the Central Sick Desk authorizes him to be absent. A hearing was held at which the plaintiff and Captain Francis C. Hall of the Police Department were heard as witnesses.

Facts

According to the affidavits and testimony, plaintiff joined the Police Department in 1966 and was injured in a collision on September 18, 1970. In January 1971 plaintiff was placed on restricted duty. In August 1971 he was placed on sick report and has remained so since that time.

The Police Department provides unlimited sick leave on full pay.

In 1973 plaintiff was suspended and brought up on Departmental charges for leaving his home on 33 occasions without permission. The surveillance reports showed, among other things, that on December 27, 1972 the plaintiff was not at home when surveillance officers arrived at 2:45 p. m., that he came home by car at 3:40, left at 4:20, went to the R.D.R. Collision Yard and stayed there until 4:35 when he left and surveillance was broken. His automobile was again observed at home at 5:15. He left at 6:00 o'clock by car and drove to Pan Am Motor Inn on Queens Boulevard, where his car remained parked when observation was discontinued at 2:00 a. m. the next day.

On January 3, 1973 he left his residence at 5:25 p. m., drove to a bakery, and then to an apartment building in which his father apparently lives. His father and a woman left the building at 5:55. At 6:35, plaintiff drove to a house at Graves End Neck, entered the house, exited with his father and came back home at 7:40, after driving his father home.

On April 25, 1973, he left his residence at 11:00 a. m. carrying an attache case, entered a dentist's office, went from there to a Cadillac service, from there to the Advance Process Spray Company, from there to a luncheonette on McDonald Avenue, from there to the Regency Carting Service, from there to the side entrance of a building at Graves End Neck Road, from there to a store on Avenue U, from there to a toy and card store on Avenue U, and from there to his residence, arriving back at 3:00 p. m.

On May 1, 1973, he was observed to leave his residence at 9:15, go to a rental office, a cleaner, a luncheonette, a factory next door the the Regency Carting Service, a music shop, a cleaner, an A & P, the Continental Coiffeur, and then drive to a building at 74-10 Grand Avenue with another man, who at about 2:05 p. m. helped him bring out a big box and put it in the trunk of his car. He then stood in front of a barber shop on Queens Boulevard talking with several men, walked to a luncheonette, then to a tire shop, and then to the Alton's Police Equipment Store on Schenectady Avenue. He arrived back at his home at 4:05 p. m., where he helped his friend carry the box from the car, into his residence.

After his departmental trial, plaintiff pleaded guilty to violating the rules on three days, was fined, and was reinstated to the Department in August 1973.

At the time of his reinstatement, plaintiff was offered any type of restricted duty, with an opportunity to choose a location within walking distance of his home. He refused because he pleaded he was too sick.

Plaintiff has applied for a disability pension. The Police Department surgeon found that he was able to work and had no physical or neurological disability. He was directed to return to work in February 1974. He reported one night at midnight, but left at 4:00 a. m., saying that he was sick as a result of medication which he had been taking. Two police sergeants went to his home, checked his medicine closet, and took a urine sample which turned out to be negative for any medication. Plaintiff has made no further attempt to work. His disability pension application has been disapproved by the Medical Board Police Pension Fund.

No evidence was offered at the hearing concerning any existing medical or psychological ailment. The court observed that the plaintiff moved with some difficulty and held his head at an angle. Plaintiff asserts that he has been drinking because of a marital problem, which he attributes to the disciplinary proceeding brought by the Police Department.

The Form M.B. 5 issued to plaintiff on August 24, 1973, entitled "Permission to Leave Residence While on Sick Report" permits him to leave for meals, from 9:00 to 10:00 a. m., 12:00 to 1:00 p. m., and 5:00 to 6:00 p. m. (later amended to 6:00 to 7:00 p. m.) daily. He takes his meals with his parents, who live nearby.

Permission to leave at other times must be obtained from the Central Sick Desk.

Plaintiff is especially concerned with the need to visit attorneys in his matrimonial action and his pension and civil rights matters, and to see his children under a court decree which permits him to do so on alternate Sundays and two weeks of school vacation. They live with their mother on Staten Island. Plaintiff cannot go there and return in an hour.

Permission to visit his children has often been denied by the Central Sick Desk, and efforts to reach Captain Hall for review of the Sick Desk...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Castro v. Dart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • September 1, 2020
    ...verify whether an employee's absence from home is consistent with a claim of disability." 710 F.2d at 1261 (citing Gissi v. Codd , 391 F. Supp. 1333, 1336 (E.D.N.Y. 1974) ). But again, at this stage, limiting the analysis to the pleadings and drawing reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ fav......
  • Bruno v. Department of Police
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • June 29, 1983
    ...discipline and morale within the police department, and accordingly, they were upheld as facially valid. Earlier, in Gissi v. Codd, 391 F.Supp. 1333 (E.D.N.Y.1974), a policeman, bound by sick leave regulations similar to those which applied to appellant Bruno, moved to enjoin their enforcem......
  • Danaher v. Michaw
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • July 25, 1977
    ...from his residence is for a legitimate purpose and consistent with his claim of total disability to perform even restricted duty." 391 F.Supp. at 1336. The statute in the case at bar should be viewed similarly. The restriction imposed on Mr. Danaher, viz., being subject to re-examination, i......
  • Hambsch v. Department of Treasury
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • July 3, 1986
    ...City of Philadelphia, 779 F.2d 43 (3d Cir.1985); Loughran v. Codd, 432 F.Supp. 259, 263 (E.D.N.Y.1976) (same), and Gissi v. Codd, 391 F.Supp. 1333, 1336-37 (E.D.N.Y.1974) (same). See also Shawgo v. Spradlin, 701 F.2d 470, 483 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Whisehunt v. Spradlin, 464 U.S.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT