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: Gary Walsh, Petitioner, v. Raymond Kelly, etc, et al., Respondents.
_
Determination of respondent New York City Civil Service Commission, dated May 23, 2008, which, after a hearing, affirmed the determination of respondent New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services to disqualify and terminate petitioner as a New York City police officer on the ground that he omitted and falsified pertinent facts about his background in his application for employment, 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 [Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.], entered March 9, 2009), dismissed, without costs.
The hearing before the Civil Service Commission was not mandated by law and, therefore, the proceeding was improperly transferred to this Court (Matter of Mingo v. Pirnie, 78 A.D.2d 984, 984-85 [1980], affd 55 N.Y.2d 1019 [1982] ). Nevertheless, we decide the matter on the merits (Matter of 125 Bar Corp. v State Liq. Auth. of State of N.Y., 24 N.Y.2d 174, 180 [1969]; Matter of DeMonico v. Kelly, 49 AD3d 265 [2008] ).
The determination is rationally supported by testimony and documents adduced at the hearing showing that petitioner concealed that he had been a suspect in a criminal homicide while in the army and had associated with members of a gang that had committed a homicide. Furthermore, the Suffolk County Police Department had disqualified him from serving as a police officer (see Mingo, 78 A.D.2d at 985; Matter of Urciuoli v Department of Citywide Admin. Servs., 75 AD3d 427, 428 [2010] ). No basis exists to disturb the Commission's credibility findings (see Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444 [1987] ). We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find them to be unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 3916
Decided: December 16, 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)