From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Abdelal v. Kelly

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 17, 2016
137 A.D.3d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

03-17-2016

In re Mohamed ABDELAL, Petitioner, v. Commissioner, Raymond W. KELLY, et al., Respondents.

The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis, New York (Christopher Q. Davis of counsel), for petitioner. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ingrid R. Gustafson of counsel), for respondents.


The Law Office of Christopher Q. Davis, New York (Christopher Q. Davis of counsel), for petitioner.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ingrid R. Gustafson of counsel), for respondents.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., ANDRIAS, SAXE, KAPNICK, JJ.

Opinion Determination of respondent Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly (Commissioner), dated January 29, 2013, which terminated petitioner's employment with the New York City Police Department (NYPD), upon findings, after a hearing, that he, among other things, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the good order, efficiency and discipline of the NYPD, 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 [Shlomo Hagler, J.], entered on or about June 16, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

The hearing testimony from Hudson County, New Jersey correctional employees constitutes substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner engaged in conduct prejudicial to the good order, efficiency and discipline of the NYPD (see generally Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193 [1987] ). An adverse inference was not warranted, because there was no evidence that the NYPD possessed, destroyed, or withheld the audio recording and in-house reports at issue ( Cordero v. Mirecle Cab Corp., 51 A.D.3d 707, 709, 858 N.Y.S.2d 717 [2d Dept.2008] ), nor did petitioner demonstrate that the audio recording ever existed (Cuevas v. 1738 Assoc., LLC, 96 A.D.3d 637, 638, 946 N.Y.S.2d 576 [1st Dept.2012] ). In addition, petitioner did not seek the admission of the video recording, and, in any event, petitioner's counsel, who had viewed the video, stipulated to its contents.

The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness (Matter of Waldren v. Town of Islip, 6 N.Y.3d 735, 736–737, 810 N.Y.S.2d 408, 843 N.E.2d 1148 [2005] ).


Summaries of

Abdelal v. Kelly

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 17, 2016
137 A.D.3d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Abdelal v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:In re Mohamed ABDELAL, Petitioner, v. Commissioner, Raymond W. KELLY, et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 17, 2016

Citations

137 A.D.3d 581 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
30 N.Y.S.3d 1
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 1920