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: CHRISTIAN HANLON, PETITIONER, v. NEW YORK STATE POLICE, RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County [Ann Marie Taddeo, J.], entered April 1, 2015) to review a determination of respondent. The determination terminated the employment of petitioner.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination finding him guilty of disciplinary charges and terminating his employment as a State Trooper following a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75. We reject petitioner's contention that certain charges were time-barred pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75(4). Pursuant to that statute, a disciplinary action must be commenced within 18 months of the occurrence of the “alleged incompetency or misconduct complained of”; however, if the misconduct charged “would, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime,” the 18–month limitation does not apply (id.; see Matter of Langler v. County of Cayuga, 68 AD3d 1775, 1776; Matter of Mieles v. Safir, 272 A.D.2d 199, 199). Here, the charges alleged conduct that would, if proved, constitute the crime of official misconduct (Penal Law § 195.00) and, therefore, they are not time-barred (see Matter of McFarland v. Abate, 203 A.D.2d 190, 190). Contrary to petitioner's further contentions, the determination is supported by substantial evidence, and the penalty is not shocking to one's sense of fairness (see Matter of Tessiero v. Bennett, 50 AD3d 1368, 1369–1370; Matter of Wilburn v. McMahon, 296 A.D.2d 805, 806–807). Finally, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's requested discovery inasmuch as petitioner failed to demonstrate that discovery was necessary (see Matter of Bramble v New York City Dept. of Educ., 125 AD3d 856, 857; see generally CPLR 408, 7804 [a] ).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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: TP 15–00672
Decided: November 13, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)