6. Brown v. Krone, 47 Misc. 2d 890, 263 N.Y.S.2d 385 (Sup. Ct. 1965), aff’d,25 A.D.2d 954, 271 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1966)

Proceeding to compel restoration of petitioner’s name to police patrolman eligibility list. The Supreme Court, held that it was unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious to base removal of applicant’s name from list on his plea of guilty to offense of disorderly conduct, three speeding tickets, and two dismissals from private employment for absenteeism.

Mr. Brown was disqualified under Section 50, subdivision 4, Paragraph (d) of the Civil Service Law, which authorizes the disqualification of an applicant or an eligible “who has been found guilty of a crime or of infamous or notoriously disgraceful conduct.” The basis for the disqualification was Mr. Brown’s conviction on his plea of guilty to disorderly conduct. The Respondent in this case relied on wrong precedent because the cases were distinguishable. They reasoned such conduct in Furman v. State Civil Service, in a prospective police officer is a far cry from that of the petitioner, which, with some possible justification, he characterizes as a childish prank. The Petitioner had not reached his maturity at the time of the incident. Lastly, “the court looks askance at this invitation to conduct an extramural and extra-record inquisition. This extra-judicial suggestion is repugnant to the most fundamental concept of due process and is emphatically rejected.”

Read about this NYPD Disqualification appeal here.