Mansfield v. Murpay
| Decision Date | 28 October 1965 |
| Citation | 16 N.Y.2d 986,265 N.Y.S.2d 297,212 N.E.2d 781 |
| Parties | , 212 N.E.2d 781 Application of Vincent J. MANSFIELD, Appellant, For an Order etc. v. Michael J. MURPHY, Police Commissioner of the City of New York and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the City of New York Police Pension Fund, et al., etc., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 21 A.D.2d 659, 249 N.Y.S.2d 697.
Petitioner brought an Article 78 proceeding against the Police Commissioner of the City of New York and others to review and annul the determination of the Police Commissioner dismissing the petitioner as a member of the police department of the City of New York and the determination of the Board of Trustees of the New York City Police Department Pension Fund refusing the application of the petitioner for a service retirement pension. The petitioner, who was a captain in the police department, and who had been a member of the police department, for more than 20 years, was found guilty, after a hearing, on charges of having accepted gratuities of $25 and $5 respectively from two garages, of giving false testimony in an investigation, and of failing to report to his commanding officer alleged violations of rules by a patrolman at a time when petitioner was supervisor of patrol.
The proceeding was transferred to the Appellate Division by an order of the Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
The Appellate Division confirmed the determination of the Police Commissioner dismissing the petitioner from the police department and held that dismissal of police captain and forfeiture of his accrued pension rights were not excessive sanctions. McNally, J., dissented.
The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that determination of guilt was not supported by substantial evidence, and that petitioner was denied a fair hearing and was therefore denied the due process of law to which he was entitled under the state and federal Constitutions, and that dismissal of the petitioner and the forfeiture of his accrued pension rights constituted an unreasonably harsh and onerous penalty.
Murray A. Gordon, New York City, for petitioner-appellant.
Leo A. Larkin, New York City (Seymour B. Quel, and George H. P. Dwight, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
Irving E. Field, Sylvester J. Garamella and Robert J. Eliasberg, New York City (Irving E. Field and Robert J. Eliasberg, New York City, on the brief),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tannenholz v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
...City Tr. Auth., 28 N.Y.2d 719, 321 N.Y.S.2d 111, 269 N.E.2d 821, affg. 34 A.D.2d 998, 312 N.Y.S.2d 574; Matter of Mansfield v. Murphy, 16 N.Y.2d 986, 265 N.Y.S.2d 297, 212 N.E.2d 781.) This is so because the conduct involved in the instant case is not to be judged in isolation, but must be ......
-
Chilson v. Board of Ed. of City of New York
...295 N.Y. 208, 212, 66 N.E.2d 57, 59; see, also, Matter of Mansfield v. Murphy, 21 A.D.2d 659, 249 N.Y.S.2d 697, affd. 16 N.Y.2d 986, 265 N.Y.S.2d 297, 212 N.E.2d 781; Matter of Boris v. Murphy, 24 A.D.2d 437, 260 N.Y.S.2d 832, affd. 19 N.Y.2d 873, 280 N.Y.S.2d 674, 227 N.E.2d ...
- Schaefer v. Kneitz