IN RE: Atik HOSSAIN (2025)

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated February 16, 2023, which, after a hearing, terminated petitioner's employment with 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, Supreme Court, New York County [Lyle E. Frank, J.], entered on or about March 5, 2024), unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that petitioner is guilty of four disciplinary charges against him, including that he struck his wife, brandished a pistol at her, threatened her and his minor son, and failed to report his arrest to the NYPD's Operations Unit. The Hearing Officer's determinations that hearsay statements of petitioner's wife and son were credible, that petitioner's testimony was not credible, and that the photograph introduced by NYPD was sufficiently authenticated, are “largely unreviewable” (Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193 [1987];  see also Matter of Melendez v. O'Neill, 184 A.D.3d 457, 457, 123 N.Y.S.3d 823 [1st Dept. 2020];  Matter of Pulliam v. Robinson, 248 A.D.2d 239, 240, 671 N.Y.S.2d 212 [1st Dept. 1998]).

Petitioner may not rely on a notification of disposition from the NYPD Transit Bureau's internal investigation, submitted for the first time with his petition, because “judicial review is limited to the facts and record adduced before the agency” (Matter of Benjamin v. Department of Housing Preserv. & Devel. of City of N.Y., 187 A.D.3d 433, 434, 129 N.Y.S.3d 779 [1st Dept. 2020]).

We do not have the discretionary authority to review petitioner's unpreserved challenges to the admission of sealed arrest records at the hearing, the NYPD's reliance on Civil Service Law § 75, or the Hearing Officer's representation of the evidence (Matter of Marks v. City of New York, 234 A.D.3d 412, 413, 222 N.Y.S.3d 473 [1st Dept. 2025];  see also Matter of Almanzar v. New York City Civil Serv. Commn., 166 A.D.3d 522, 524, 89 N.Y.S.3d 140 [1st Dept. 2018]).

The penalty of termination does not shock one's sense of fairness in light of petitioner's egregious conduct (see e.g. Matter of Marks, 234 A.D.3d at 413, 222 N.Y.S.3d 473;  Matter of Castillo v. Shea, 226 A.D.3d 531, 531–532, 207 N.Y.S.3d 512 [1st Dept. 2024], lv dismissed 42 N.Y.3d 1071, 226 N.Y.S.3d 550, 251 N.E.3d 645 [2025]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Motion to unseal respondents’ brief granted.