MATTER OF BAL v. Murphy

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. Judgment affirmed. The commissioner’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and the sanction imposed is not so disproportionate as to warrant judicial correction (Matter of Alfieri v Murphy, 38 NY2d 976; Matter of O’Connor v Frank, 38 NY2d 963; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Though petitioner’s record includes some commendations, it also reveals a pattern of repeated violations of police regulations for which he previously had been disciplined and which, along with the present ones, could be found to manifest either an unwillingness to obey orders or otherwise adapt to the disciplines required of a police officer. The commissioner had a right to take these in account in his disposition (Matter of Slominski v Codd, 52 AD2d 762, affd 41 NY2d 1086). Moreover, while, as the commissioner himself noted, none of the infractions involved lack of integrity, it was within the commissioner’s province to premise his findings on the "requirements [for] order, authority, and discipline” which he decided petitioner had failed to meet (see People ex rel. Guiney v Valentine, 274 NY 331, 334; People ex rel. Masterson v French, 110 NY 494, 499). Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur. Judgment affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.