New York Court of Appeals, 1986

Garayua v. New York City Police Department

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 20, 1986

68 N.Y.2d 970; 510 N.Y.S.2d 547; 503 N.E.2d 103; 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20932

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

City of New York v. City Civil Service Commission (New York Supreme Court 1988)
Karl Reeves, C.E.I.N.Y. Corp. v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Reeves v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
City of New York v. New York City Civil Service Commission (N.Y. 2006)
City of New York v. New York City Civil Service Commission (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Acevedo v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Department of Personnel v. New York City Civil Service Commission (N.Y. 1991)
Department of Personnel of New York v. New York City Civil Service Commission (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Segrue v. City of Schenectady (N.Y. 1990)
Norwood Pub, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Krasowski v. State Education Deparment (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division in the above-entitled proceedings should be affirmed, with costs.

The city police department and its director of personnel, without objecting to the authority of the city Civil Service Commission to hear the matter de nova, participated in an evidentiary hearing before the Commission on Ms. Garayua’s *972disqualification, presenting their own witnesses and cross-examining Ms. Garayua’s. Moreover, even after the Commission’s decision was announced, the police department and personnel director continued to treat the Commission as the primary fact finder by moving for a reopening of the case on grounds of "newly discovered evidence” alone.

Having fully taken part in this proceeding, the agency and personnel director charted their own procedural course and cannot now be heard to complain because the Civil Service Commission made findings and exercised its own discretion on the basis of the facts placed before it. At this point, all that a reviewing court may do is examine the Commission’s determination to ensure that its discretionary determination with respect to the penalty was not so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). Inasmuch as the Commission’s decision to direct Garayua’s reinstatement was within the range of the rational conclusions that could be reached on the basis of the record before it, that decision must be upheld and obeyed.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur; Judge Kaye taking no part.

In each case: Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.