You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW...
,

ALTHOUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS WRONG, THE RULING WAS CORRECT; THE ARRESTING OFFICER WHO LEARNED THE SUSPECT COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME, BUT SAID NOTHING, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FOR COSTS OF DEFENDING THE RELATED CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed a police officer’s article 78 proceeding seeking reimbursement of the cost of defending a civil rights lawsuit. During the civil rights suit, the officer admitted doing nothing when he learned the plaintiff could not have committed the crime for which he was arrested. The officer argued the applicable provision of the General Municipal Law was ambiguous and, read correctly, required the county to indemnify him. Although the Second Department found that the provision was in fact ambiguous and had not been interpreted correctly by the Nassau County Police Officer Indemnification Board, the Board had correctly held the statute did not allow indemnification of the officer:

The statute vests the [Nassau County Police Officer Indemnification] Board with the discretion to determine the issues of proper discharge of duties and scope of employment, limited only by judicial review of whether a denial of defense and indemnification is arbitrary and capricious … . Here, the Board’s determination that the petitioner was not acting within the scope of his employment was arbitrary and capricious … . However, its determination that the petitioner’s failure to notify anyone that an incarcerated arrestee could not possibly have committed the robbery for which he was charged was not “committed while in the proper discharge of his duties” was supported by the facts and was not arbitrary and capricious (General Municipal Law § 50-l…). A court “may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency responsible for making the determination, but must ascertain only whether there is a rational basis for the decision or whether it is arbitrary and capricious” … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Matter of Lemma v Nassau County Police Officer Indem. Bd., 2017 NY Slip Op 00649, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

MUNICIPAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS WRONG, THE RULING WAS CORRECT, THE ARRESTING OFFICER WHO LEARNED THE SUSPECT COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME, BUT SAID NOTHING, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FOR COSTS OF DEFENDING THE RELATED CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT)/POLICE OFFICERS (ALTHOUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS WRONG, THE RULING WAS CORRECT, THE ARRESTING OFFICER WHO LEARNED THE SUSPECT COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME, BUT SAID NOTHING, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FOR COSTS OF DEFENDING THE RELATED CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (POLICE OFFICERS, ALTHOUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS WRONG, THE RULING WAS CORRECT, THE ARRESTING OFFICER WHO LEARNED THE SUSPECT COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME, BUT SAID NOTHING, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FOR COSTS OF DEFENDING THE RELATED CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT)/CIVIL RIGHTS (POLICE OFFICERS, ALTHOUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS WRONG, THE RULING WAS CORRECT, THE ARRESTING OFFICER WHO LEARNED THE SUSPECT COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME, BUT SAID NOTHING, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FOR COSTS OF DEFENDING THE RELATED CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT)

You might also like
THE COURT’S FAILURE TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT ON ONE INDICTMENT REQUIRED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEAS TO THAT INDICTMENT AND ANOTHER INDICTMENT FROM WHICH NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN (SECOND DEPT).
STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).
Vicious Propensities Not Demonstrated, Summary Judgment Properly Awarded to Defendants
Criteria for a Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Documentary Evidence and a Motion to Dismiss Supported by Submitted Evidence Explained (Not Met Here)
MOTION, MADE BY PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL, TO VACATE A STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PRIOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PRIOR COUNSEL HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF CAN NOT LATER ARGUE PRIOR COUNSEL LACKED AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).
COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EAVESDROPPING WARRANTS TO INTERCEPT CELL PHONE CALLS AND TEXT MESSAGES SENT AND RECEIVED OUTSIDE NEW YORK STATE (SECOND DEPT).
Proof Vehicle Was Stolen at the Time of the Accident Defeated Action Based Upon Vehicle-Owner’s Vicarious Liability
NEW AUDI DEALERSHIP WAS OUTSIDE PLAINTIFF DEALERSHIP’S MARKET AREA, SUIT UNDER THE DEALER ACT PROPERLY DISMISSED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DOG INJURED PLAINTIFF BY RUNNING AND JUMPING UP ON HER IN PLAY, COMPLAINT PROPERLY... LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE OF AN ICY CONDITION PRECLUDED SUIT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL...