Matter of Nicoletta v. Police Commissioner of Nassau County, 29 N.Y.2d 357 (1972)

In administrative disciplinary hearings, strict adherence to technical rules of evidence is not required, but the admission of prejudicial evidence lacking probative force can violate the right to a fair hearing.

Summary

This case concerns a Nassau County police officer, Nicoletta, who was dismissed from the police department after a disciplinary hearing based on allegations of sexual misconduct. The Appellate Division initially vacated the dismissal, citing the improper admission of polygraph test results and a hearsay report. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that while the polygraph results were improperly admitted, their inconclusiveness did not prejudice Nicoletta’s right to a fair hearing. The Court emphasized that substantial evidence, primarily the complainant’s credible testimony, supported the Police Commissioner’s determination. The decision clarifies the standard for admissibility of evidence in administrative hearings and the level of evidence required to uphold disciplinary actions.

Facts

A 21-year-old woman reported that Nicoletta, a Nassau County patrolman, stopped her for speeding at 1:15 AM. She alleged that Nicoletta suggested she use the restroom at a nearby beach club, but upon arrival, he admitted not having the key. The woman claimed that Nicoletta then made sexual advances and committed a sexual act in her presence inside his patrol car. She identified Nicoletta in a lineup and knew him by the nickname “Big Al.” Nicoletta denied the allegations, claiming he was with two security guards during the relevant time. The two guards corroborated his alibi.

Procedural History

A police disciplinary hearing found Nicoletta guilty of misconduct and recommended his dismissal. The Police Commissioner confirmed the findings and ordered Nicoletta’s dismissal. Nicoletta then commenced an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the dismissal. The Appellate Division vacated the Police Commissioner’s determination, citing the admission of polygraph test results and a hearsay report. The Police Commissioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the admission of polygraph test results and a hearsay report in a police disciplinary hearing constitutes a violation of the officer’s right to a fair hearing, warranting annulment of the Police Commissioner’s determination, and whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Holding

No, because the erroneous admission of the inconclusive polygraph test results did not violate Nicoletta’s right to a fair hearing, and the Police Commissioner’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, namely, the complainant’s credible testimony and corroborating circumstances.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that compliance with technical rules of evidence is not required in disciplinary proceedings. While all relevant, material, and reliable evidence should generally be admissible, no essential element of a fair trial can be dispensed with. The Court found that the polygraph test results were inadmissible due to the lack of general scientific recognition of their efficacy and the absence of a proper foundation establishing the reliability of the specific tests administered. However, the Court emphasized that the tests’ inconclusiveness nullified any inference of truthfulness and indicated a lack of substantial prejudice to Nicoletta. Referencing Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 157, the court stated that “To render a hearing unfair the defect, or the practice complained of, must have been such as might have led to a denial of justice, or there must have been absent one of the elements deemed essential to due process.” The Court then determined that the Police Commissioner’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. The Court noted the complainant’s testimony, which the hearing officer found credible, was substantial positive evidence of the charges. Further corroboration included Nicoletta being the only patrolman in the area, the complainant’s reasonably accurate physical description of Nicoletta, and her knowledge of his nickname. The Court cited National Labor Relations Bd. v. Remington Rand, 94 F. 2d 862, 873 (2d Cir., 1938), stating that the substantial evidence test asks whether “in the end the finding is supported by the kind of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in serious affairs.” The Court deferred to the Trial Commissioner’s credibility assessment and the Police Commissioner’s factual findings, holding that it may not substitute its view even if it could have arrived at a different conclusion.