Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Application of Michael PARTLAND, Petitioner, For a Judgment, etc., v. William J. BRATTON, etc., et al., Respondents.
Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated January 10, 1996, dismissing petitioner from the New York City Police Department, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Norman Ryp, J.], entered November 4, 1996), dismissed, without costs.
The record supports the hearing officer's determination that information supplied by confidential informants, which was confirmed in part by observations of Internal Affairs investigators as well as by subsequent observations of petitioner engaged in activities suggesting drug use, constituted the reasonable suspicion required for an order directing a drug test for cause (Matter of Perez v. Ward, 69 N.Y.2d 840, 514 N.Y.S.2d 703, 507 N.E.2d 296). The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence is that the officer authorizing the order acted upon information conveyed by a fellow officer possessing the requisite reasonable suspicion. Further, accepting the credibility determinations of the hearing officer (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 230, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321), there was substantial evidence that petitioner refused the lawful order to submit to a drug test. Thus, the record as a whole indicates that the determinations of the hearing officer are supported by substantial evidence (CPLR 7803[4]; Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193).
We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find they do not warrant a contrary result.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 10, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)