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: Anthony Chiofalo, Petitioner, v. Raymond W. Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.
_
Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated August 3, 2007, terminating petitioner's employment as a detective, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.], entered May 22, 2008), dismissed, without costs.
Respondent Commissioner was entitled to substitute his own judgment for that of respondent assistant deputy commissioner of trials, including on matters of credibility, since that judgment is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Dobrin v. Safir, 272 A.D.2d 134 [2000]; see also Matter of Mancini v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 26 AD3d 178 [2006] ). In rejecting petitioner's claim that he ingested marijuana unknowingly, the Commissioner relied on the Police Department's scientific evidence that inadvertently ingesting marijuana in contaminated food and inhaling secondhand smoke could not cause the high levels of marijuana in petitioner's hair samples (see Connor v. New York City Police Dept., 22 AD3d 425 [2005] ). We reject petitioner's claim that using the radioimmunoassay method of hair testing violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure because the use of that method was not authorized by the Police Department's collective bargaining agreement with petitioner's union. The Court of Appeals has held that the Commissioner was empowered to choose the method of drug testing, and that choice was not subject to collective bargaining (see Matter of City of New York v Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc., _ NY3d 09314, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 09314 [2009] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 1151
Decided: February 04, 2010
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)