| Matter of Salatel v New York State Police |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06351 [98 AD3d 1214] |
| September 27, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Jeffrey C. Salatel, Petitioner, v New York StatePolice et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Paul Groenwegen of counsel), forrespondents.
Peters, P.J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of theSupreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondentSuperintendent of the State Police terminating petitioner's employment as a State Trooper.
Following a disciplinary hearing, a Hearing Board recommended that petitioner, a StateTrooper, be found guilty of 10 charges of misconduct stemming from his interaction with fourwomen during traffic stops between May 2008 and November 2009 and that he be terminatedfrom his position. The charges included criminal misconduct and receiving bribes, as well asviolating certain State Police regulations regarding sexual harassment and departmentalmisconduct. Respondent Superintendent of the State Police accepted the Hearing Board'srecommendation and terminated petitioner's employment. This CPLR article 78 proceedingensued.
We confirm. This Court "will not substitute its judgment for that of [the Superintendent] ifhis conclusion is reasonably supported by the record" (Matter of Novotny v Constantine,150 AD2d 852, 853 [1989]; accord Matter of Wilburn v McMahon, 296 AD2d 805, 806[2002]). Here, a woman testified that she was pulled over by petitioner for speeding. Accordingto the woman, she asked petitioner not to give her a ticket and he went back to his [*2]patrol car to "think about it." When petitioner returned to her car, herepeatedly asked the woman to "show me your boobs." Finally, after the woman asked petitionerto just give her the ticket so she could leave, petitioner issued the ticket. The woman called hermother immediately after being allowed to drive away and informed her of petitioner's conduct.Her mother testified that she then contacted the State Police, who informed her to report theincident to her local police department, which she did. In contrast, petitioner denied making anyinappropriate comments to the woman.
Another woman testified that she was also pulled over by petitioner for speeding. Petitioneragain did not issue a ticket right away, but instead told the woman he was reluctant to issue aticket and told her that he was trying to help her out and that she needed to work with him. Hethen told her she was "a very pretty young girl" and had her get out of her car and get into hispatrol car. At that point, he pushed the car seat all the way back, he began adjusting his belt andagain asked her to work with him and stated that she was not "helping me help you." Accordingto the woman, she then took out her cell phone and petitioner's attitude changed; he eventuallyissued her a ticket. Petitioner recounted a different version of events, testifying that shortly afterhe had approached the car, the driver "yanked down her shirt" exposing her cleavage in an effortto avoid a ticket, that he asked her to get into his car in order to detect whether she was under theinfluence of drugs or alcohol and that there was never a sexual connotation to his conversationwith her.
Finally, two other women similarly testified that petitioner offered them a chance to avoidbeing issued a ticket and that he told one of them that she should "try to sell yourself to get out ofthe ticket." Although petitioner denied any wrongdoing in the four traffic stops, inasmuch as thisCourt "will not 'second guess the credibility determinations of the administrative factfinder' " (Matter of Tessiero v Bennett, 50 AD3d1368, 1369 [2008], quoting Matterof McKinney v Bennett, 31 AD3d 860, 861 [2006]), we conclude that petitioner's guiltis supported by the record and the Superintendent's determination will not be disturbed (see Matter of Bassett v Fenton, 68AD3d 1385, 1387 [2009]; Matter of Tessiero v Bennett, 50 AD3d at 1369-1370).Finally, considering the nature of petitioner's conduct, the penalty of termination does not shockour sense of fairness (see Matter of Tessiero v Bennett, 50 AD3d at 1370; Matter ofMcKinney v Bennett, 31 AD3d at 862).
Lahtinen, Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination isconfirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.