(DOWNLOAD) "Matter Raymond T. Pachucki" by Supreme Court of New York " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Matter Raymond T. Pachucki
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 10, 1977
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
[56 A.D.2d 677 Page 677] Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination by the Town Board of the Town of Guilderland which dismissed petitioner from employment as a town police officer. Petitioner, a police officer of the Town of Guilderland police force since 1972, was charged by a notice of charge dated October 28, 1975 with 10 specifications of misconduct and suspended pending a hearing. Following the hearing the hearing officer issued his report recommending that all the charges except one be dismissed. Regarding the charge he sustained, taking and removing a quantity of the town's motor oil for personal use, the hearing officer recommended a 30-day suspension. On January 13, 1976, after reviewing the record, the town board dismissed the petitioner. Petitioner then brought this article 78 proceeding to review the determination, to set it aside and compel his reinstatement. Initially petitioner argues that the charges were fatally defective by reason of their lack of specificity. Section 75 of the Civil Service Law requires that a person suspected of misconduct be presented with stated charges. Such person should be sufficiently apprised of the charges against him so as to enable him to prepare his defense (People ex rel. Miller v Elmendorf, 42 App Div 306). We consider the appropriate standard in determining whether charges are sufficiently specific to be whether or not they are detailed enough to allow the person charged to present a defense. If the person suspected of misconduct believes the charges inadequate, he may ask for a bill of particulars (Matter of Cregier v Cassidy, 205 App Div 774). In the present case, petitioner made no request for a bill of particulars nor did he request additional time to prepare a defense. After a careful examination of the charges, this court is of the view that the charges were sufficient. In his petition, the petitioner claimed upon information and belief that all the members of the town board did not review the record before making the determination and that one member of the town board improperly communicated with the hearing officer while the hearing officer was considering his decision. These allegations are insufficient to raise issues of fact in this [56 A.D.2d 677 Page 678]