Towpash v. Kelly
Opinion of the Court
Substantial evidence supports respondent’s findings. We reject petitioner’s arguments based upon her right against self-incrimination and to counsel (see e.g. Gardner v Broderick, 392 US 273 [1968]). The evidence establishes that petitioner refused to meet with a fellow officer who came to investigate a complaint against her and then refused a directive from a superior officer to report to the 78th Precinct to respond to the complaints of her neighbor, with whom she had been engaged in a longstanding dispute. There was nothing to prevent petitioner from complying with the superior officer’s directive and, at the same time, asserting her rights against self-incrimination and to counsel. The record establishes that the order to report to the 78th Precinct was lawful and that petitioner had no authority to disregard it. We have considered and rejected petitioner’s remaining arguments. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.