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 Sotiris SPIRATOS, Petitioner, v. Howard SAFIR, etc., et al., Respondents.
Determination of respondent Police Commissioner dated November 13, 1996, dismissing petitioner from his position as a New York City police officer, 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 [George Daniels, J.], entered on or about June 12, 1997), dismissed, without costs.
Respondents' determination that petitioner engaged in conduct prejudicial to the Police Department and provided false testimony at a departmental interview is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193), including testimony by Internal Affairs Bureau officers that petitioner utilized various improper tactics to enable his uncle to monopolize the corner where he operated his food cart, and a videotape of relevant events occurring on January 23 and 24, 1996, contradicting petitioner's testimony at a departmental interview. Petitioner's retraction of that testimony was properly rejected, coming as it did only after petitioner realized that his interviewer knew he was testifying falsely.
Testimony by an Internal Affairs officer respecting allegations of attempted bribery made against petitioner by an unlicensed vendor, although hearsay, was not precluded at petitioner's administrative hearing (see, Matter of LaFemina v. Brown, 194 A.D.2d 405, 598 N.Y.S.2d 785).
Finally, the penalty of dismissal is not so disproportionate to the offenses that petitioner was found to have committed as to be shocking to our sense of fairness (see, Trotta v. Ward, 77 N.Y.2d 827, 566 N.Y.S.2d 199, 567 N.E.2d 241).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 30, 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)