Opinion
February 8, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.).
Upon review of this record, we conclude that the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, should not be disturbed. (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176.) The Police Department's sole eyewitness testified that petitioner had attempted to utilize his position as a police officer to solicit oral sex at the Miyako Massage Parlour and, when rebuffed, had gone on a drunken rampage with his three companions, also police officers, which included the acts of urinating on a table containing food valued at $250 and damaging walls, doors, and light fixtures. This testimony, which was fully credited by the Hearing Officer, was sufficient to support the charges, and did not require corroboration. (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436. )
We further find that the sanction imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to shock one's sense of fairness. (See, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 234.) Much deference is to be accorded an agency's imposition of penalties (Matter of Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 N.Y.2d 182), particularly where matters of internal discipline in the Police Department are concerned. (Matter of Meyer v Rozzi, 108 A.D.2d 859, 860.)
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Rosenberger, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.