Steyer, Matter of
| Decision Date | 11 February 1988 |
| Citation | 526 N.Y.S.2d 422,70 N.Y.2d 990 |
| Parties | , 521 N.E.2d 429 In the Matter of David STEYER, Appellant. In the Matter of Richard BURNS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The judgment of the Appellate Division, 129 A.D.2d 994, 514 N.Y.S.2d 298, should be affirmed, with costs.
On February 26, 1984, William Oakes (a murder suspect) confessed to police and was then transported to the Jefferson County jail by Investigator Robert Cooke and Detective Edward Simser. At his trial several months later, Oakes testified that Cooke and Simser had beaten and abused him during the trip, including firing a gun near his head and threatening him with it in an effort to locate evidence. As a result of this testimony, the District Attorney questioned groups of officers about the incident, among them petitioners, but no one supported Oakes' version of the incident. According to the District Attorney, his cross-examination of Oakes was based on these interviews indicating that Oakes was lying. * Through all of this, petitioners disclosed no knowledge of the incident either to the District Attorney or to their own superior officers in the course of their office communications about the incident. After a mistrial, in October 1985 Oakes was retried and convicted of murder.
Roughly two years after the incident--on January 24, 1986--Steyer prepared a sworn statement relating (1) that Simser told him on February 27, 1984 about the "night of terror" when he and Cooke "scared the hell out of Oakes" in an effort to strengthen the case, including discharging a gun three times near his ear, pointing it at him and threatening to shoot, and roughing him up, and (2) that during a break while both attended Oakes' trial, Cooke told him of the shooting and the beating. On April 7, 1986, Steyer gave the affidavit to Acting Sheriff Franklyn Gowing, when he learned that Gowing was considering promoting Simser to the position of undersheriff. Gowing notified the District Attorney and County Attorney of the affidavit, and an investigation commenced. After investigators questioned Burns about the incident, on April 17, 1986 he executed an affidavit stating that on February 27, 1984, both Simser and Cooke told him of the shooting and beating; Burns' affidavit contained many of the same details as Steyer's affidavit.
One month later, on May 23, 1986, the Sheriff preferred disciplinary charges against both petitioners. Each was charged with one specification of failing to report knowledge of crimes by a fellow officer and one specification of failing to report knowledge of crimes; petitioners were found guilty of both. Although the Hearing Officer recommended demotion, the Sheriff determined that petitioners should be removed. By the present article 78 proceeding petitioners challenged their dismissals principally on the ground that the 18-month limitations period of Civil Service Law § 75(4) precluded any disciplinary proceedings against them. The Appellate Division confirmed the administrative determination, concluding that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Lamictal Indirect Purchaser & Antitrust Consumer Litig.
... ... Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 'to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d ... Id. (citing Matter of Steyer , 70 N.Y.2d 990, 993, 526 N.Y.S.2d 422, 521 N.E.2d 429 (1988) ). A wrongdoer is not legally obliged to make a public confession, or to alert people ... ...
-
Pellegrino v. County of Orange
...the notice, which commenced the Section 75 process, was served within the statutory 18-month period. Matter of Steyer, 70 N.Y.2d 990, 993, 993 526 N.Y.S.2d 422, 423, 521 N.E.2d 429 (1988) (disciplinary charges must be filed within 18 months of asserted wrongful conduct); Nagle v. Bratton, 2......
-
Zumpano v. Quinn
...that subsequent and specific actions by defendants somehow kept them from timely bringing suit (see Matter of Steyer, 70 N.Y.2d 990, 993, 526 N.Y.S.2d 422, 521 N.E.2d 429 [1988]). Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy this burden. As observed by the lower courts, each plaintiff was aware of the......
-
Longo v. Dolce
...and the charge was promptly lodged once the respondents were made aware of the Florida prosecution (see, Matter of Steyer, 70 N.Y.2d 990, 526 N.Y.S.2d 422, 521 N.E.2d 429). It is our opinion that, under all the facts and circumstances of this case, the penalty of dismissal was not so dispro......