Foley v. Bratton, 86 N.Y.2d 785 (1995)

A tenured police officer is entitled to an administrative hearing before dismissal for a misdemeanor conviction, unless the conviction is for a felony or a crime involving violation of the oath of office, in which case dismissal is automatic under Public Officers Law § 30(1)(e).

Summary

Two tenured New York City police officers, Foley and Griffin, were dismissed without a hearing following misdemeanor convictions for off-duty conduct. Foley was convicted of attempted assault and harassment, while Griffin was convicted of resisting arrest and reckless endangerment. The Police Commissioner relied on Administrative Code § 14-115, arguing it allowed discretionary dismissal upon conviction of any criminal offense. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s affirmance of the dismissals, holding that an administrative hearing is required prior to termination unless the conviction falls under Public Officers Law § 30(1)(e) (felony or oath of office crime), thus reconciling seemingly conflicting statutes.

Facts

Michael Foley, a tenured NYPD officer, was convicted of attempted assault and harassment stemming from an off-duty incident at a hospital.

Dennis Griffin, also a tenured NYPD officer, was convicted of resisting arrest and reckless endangerment after being stopped by a State Trooper while off-duty.

In both cases, the Police Commissioner, relying on Administrative Code § 14-115, dismissed the officers without holding an administrative hearing.

Procedural History

Following their dismissals, both Foley and Griffin filed Article 78 proceedings to annul the Commissioner’s decision.

Supreme Court initially granted Foley’s petition but dismissed it on reargument. In Griffin’s case, Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decisions in both cases.

The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division orders.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Administrative Code § 14-115 permits the Police Commissioner to terminate tenured police officers summarily upon conviction of a misdemeanor.
2. Whether Public Officers Law § 30(1)(e) and McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws § 891 conflict with Administrative Code § 14-115 regarding the removal of police officers.

Holding

1. No, because Administrative Code § 14-115 requires an administrative hearing before a tenured police officer can be dismissed, unless the officer is convicted of a felony or a crime involving violation of the oath of office under Public Officers Law § 30(1)(e).

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reconciled Administrative Code § 14-115 with Public Officers Law § 30(1)(e) and McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws § 891. It interpreted Administrative Code § 14-115(b), which states that members of the force shall be removed only after written charges and a hearing, to mandate a hearing before dismissal. The exception “except as elsewhere provided herein” was interpreted to refer to subsection (c) concerning salary deductions, not to create an exception to the hearing requirement based on criminal convictions.

The Court distinguished between convictions for felonies or crimes involving the oath of office under Public Officers Law § 30(1)(e), which trigger automatic removal, and other convictions. Regarding the former, the court stated, “the Legislature flatly determined that a felony or ‘oath of office’ conviction is serious enough, without more, to justify automatic removal. It may decree, as it has, that there is nothing more to hear, and that no amount of mitigation or explanation can override a conviction of that tenor or abide the officer’s continued employment.”

The court emphasized that the Police Commissioner proceeded solely under Administrative Code § 14-115 and did not argue that the officers’ misdemeanors constituted