Wilson v. Sartori

petitioner was using his position as a police officer "to pursue a personal dispute with the City”. On July 6, 1976, the police chief asked petitioner in the presence of Deputy Police Chief Lido to disclose the name of the original complainant. According to the police chiefs testimony, petitioner replied that "the person was a city employee; that he did not care to cause this person any harm and did not want to disclose the person’s name.” Petitioner then refused a direct order to name the complainant. Petitioner himself testified that "I told [the police chief] that the person refused to become involved, and that the person was a City employee”, and that he "wasn’t going to identify the person”. At a second meeting held on July 26, 1976, however, the police chief testified that petitioner refused to disclose the complainant’s name because "He said he didn’t know who the person was”. On cross-examination, petitioner testified as follows: "Q. Well, in your reports [sic] number 9101, who was the complainant that you put down? A. City of Elmira. Q. Now, did the City of Elmira become a complainant? A. (No response). Q. You were the complainant, weren’t you? A. Sir? Q. You were the complainant? A. I am a member of the City of Elmira Police Department. Q. You were the complainant in the report, weren’t you? A. I am an officer who the report was reported to, and the incident reported to me. And I am the investigating officer. It says that on there.” The hearing officer, whose findings of fact were adopted by respondent Sartori, found that "If there actually was a complainant, but [petitioner] did not actually get his name or know his name, it is incredible to believe that [petitioner] would not have so stated in his first interview with Chief Donnells, and have made it clear that he did not know the name of the man at all. And between July 6 and July 26, [petitioner] changed his position from knowing who the man was but 'not wanting to get him involved’ * * * to later claiming that he did not know who the man was and could not identify him”. Under Gramatan (supra), therefore, respondent’s determination that petitioner was the complainant, which predicated the finding that he improperly completed the offense report, was based upon an inference which could have been "reasonably” drawn from the record and so is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s second contention, that the charge that he refused an "order” to attend a meeting with Deputy Police Chief Lido was unsubstantiated, is also without merit. Petitioner testified that no order had been given him; he merely could have elected whether or not to come in. On the other hand, Deputy Police Chief Lido testified that when petitioner phoned him, he told petitioner that he wanted to see him in his office and that when petitioner learned that it concerned the offense report, he replied that he did not care to attend. Although stating that he has never used the word "order” in his dealings with fellow officers, Lido characterized his request as an "order”. This testimony merely raised a credibility question and, therefore, respondent Sartori’s conclusion that petitioner failed to obey a proper order of Lido to report to his office to discuss the offense report should not be disturbed (see Matter of Corwin v Village of Ellenville, 69 AD2d 933 ). Next, we cannot say that the punishment imposed was so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 ). Finally, we have examined the other contentions raised by petitioner and find them unpersuasive. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.