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: Police Officer Manuel GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Raymond W. KELLY, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.
Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated May 18, 2006, finding petitioner guilty of five departmental charges of misconduct and imposing a one-year dismissal probation and 30-day vacation forfeiture, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the penalty, and remitting the matter to respondent for the imposition of an appropriate lesser penalty, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Emily Jane Goodman, J.], entered May 22, 2007) otherwise disposed of by confirming the remainder of the determination, without costs.
Substantial evidence supports the findings that petitioner violated his commanding officer's order to terminate his involvement with the District Attorney's office in a criminal investigation; failed to take possession of drugs during a police department integrity test; failed to voucher his helmet, mace and shield before leaving for active military duty; retrieved his service handgun before the official date of his discharge from active military duty; and failed to report a domestic incident to the department. There is no basis to disturb the hearing officer's rejection of petitioner's explanations for these actions (see Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193 [1987] ).
We find that the penalty is excessive in light of the mitigating circumstances, i.e., petitioner's several tours of active military duty, including a year in Afghanistan for which he was decorated, and the substantial pay lost in connection with his military service (see Matter of Pell v. Bd. of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974]; see also Matter of Ryngala v. Codd, 57 A.D.2d 808, 395 N.Y.S.2d 168 [1977] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
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: October 02, 2008
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)