History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ennis v. Valentine
273 A.D. 882
N.Y. App. Div.
1948
Check Treatment
Cohn, J.

(concurring). If the trial commissioner had before him the newly discovered evidence, to wit, the original report of the prisoner’s condition which is now shown to have been filled out in the handwriting of the desk lieutenant and not in the handwriting of petitioner (though it was signed by petitioner), it may well be that the trial commissioner would not have adjudged petitioner guilty of specifications 5 and 6. Such new evidence might have an important bearing upon those two counts. Were these the only specifications charged against petitioner he would undoubtedly be entitled to a rehearing.

However, as to specifications 2, 3 and 4 there appears to be substantial evidence in the record to sustain the finding of guilt. An adjudication of guilt upon specifications such as these has been held sufficient to sustain dismissal *883from the police department (Matter of Roge v. Valentine, 280 N. Y. 268). It is for that reason that I concur in the determination to confirm.

Dore, J. P., Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ., concur in decision; Cohn, J., concurs in opinion in which Shientag, J., concurs.

Determination unanimously confirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion.

Case Details

Case Name: Ennis v. Valentine
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Mar 15, 1948
Citation: 273 A.D. 882
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.