MATTER OF HARP v. New York City Police Dept.
| Decision Date | 10 July 2001 |
| Citation | 756 N.E.2d 74,96 N.Y.2d 892,730 N.Y.S.2d 786 |
| Parties | In the Matter of JEFFREY HARP, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of New York City (A. Orli Spanier of counsel), for appellant.
Eugene Prosnitz, Bronx, for respondent.
Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK, WESLEY, ROSENBLATT and GRAFFEO concur in memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed in its entirety.
After a disciplinary hearing, the Police Commissioner found that petitioner Jeffrey Harp, an Internal Affairs officer, wrongfully made false and misleading statements while under oath at an official interview regarding his activities in connection with a matter under Internal Affairs investigation. The Appellate Division held that this determination was supported by substantial evidence. Finding the administrative penalty to be excessive, the court vacated petitioner's dismissal and remanded for reconsideration.
An administrative penalty must be upheld unless it "is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness," thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 237; CPLR 7803 [3]). Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be concluded that, as a matter of law, "the penalty of dismissal imposed by the Commissioner shocks the judicial conscience" (Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 39-40; see also, Matter of Ansbro v McGuire, 49 NY2d 872, 874).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oliver v. D'Amico
...conduct, we cannot say that the penalty of dismissal shocks our sense of fairness (see Matter of Harp v. New York City Police Dept., 96 N.Y.2d 892, 893–894, 730 N.Y.S.2d 786, 756 N.E.2d 74 ; Matter of Lyons v. Superintendent of State Police, 129 A.D.3d 1238, 1240, 11 N.Y.S.3d 326 ; Foster v......
-
Harp v. City of New York
...NYPD's discretion. Harp v. New York City Police Dep't, 277 A.D.2d 147, 717 N.Y.S.2d 108, 109 (App.Div.2000), rev'd, 96 N.Y.2d 892, 730 N.Y.S.2d 786, 756 N.E.2d 74 (2001). On July 10, 2001, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and dismissed the plaintiff......
-
Sullivan v. Cnty. of Rockland
...of Kreisler v. New York City Tr. Auth., 2 N.Y.3d 775, 780 N.Y.S.2d 302, 812 N.E.2d 1250 ; Matter of Harp v. New York City Police Dept., 96 N.Y.2d 892, 894, 730 N.Y.S.2d 786, 756 N.E.2d 74 ; Matter of Anderson v. Board of Educ. of the Oyster Bay–E. Norwich Cent. Sch. Dist., 186 A.D.3d 597, 1......
-
Sullivan v. Cnty. of Rockland
...of Kreisler v. New York City Tr. Auth., 2 N.Y.3d 775, 776, 780 N.Y.S.2d 302, 812 N.E.2d 1250 ; Matter of Harp v. New York City Police Dept., 96 N.Y.2d 892, 894, 730 N.Y.S.2d 786, 756 N.E.2d 74 ; Matter of Sassi v. City of Beacon, 145 A.D.3d 789, 44 N.Y.S.3d 91 ). A result is shocking to one......