Lewis v. New York City Housing Authority
151 A.D.2d 237 (1989)
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency's determination that an off-duty police officer, who is also an ordained minister, violated departmental rules by asserting clergy privilege is not supported by substantial evidence when the record lacks proof that the individual approached the officer in his law enforcement capacity and instead supports the officer's reasonable belief that the communication was confidential and made to him as a clergyman.
Facts:
- On the evening of Saturday, August 17, 1985, off-duty Detective Richard Lewis, an 18-year veteran of the HPD and an ordained minister, was presiding over a church function at the Epiphany Church of God in Brooklyn, dressed in a suit and tie, exhibiting no police insignia.
- An elderly gentleman approached Lewis on the church steps, addressed him by his first name, and stated he had something he wished to give to Lewis, who then brought the man into the church.
- A few minutes later, the man returned to the church carrying a tightly wound, opaque plastic bag, and Lewis escorted him to a trustee’s office where he opened the bag and discovered a .38 caliber gun.
- The man told Lewis that he had found the gun that morning and did not know what to do with it; Lewis testified he had previously informed the man he was a minister and believed the man approached him in that capacity.
- Not wanting to leave a firearm on church premises, Lewis took the gun outside, flagged down a passing HPD patrol car, and turned the weapon over to Officer Michael McCabe, whom he knew.
- Lewis requested that the gun be turned in at the police precinct and understood McCabe would voucher it in Lewis’s name, but Lewis refused to divulge the name of the person who gave him the weapon.
- On August 22, 1985, during a telephone investigation by Sergeant Yvonne Mitchell, Lewis maintained his position that he could not disclose the individual’s name.
- One day later, Lewis brought the elderly gentleman to Sergeant Mitchell’s office to be interviewed.
Procedural Posture:
- The New York City Housing Authority (respondent) held a hearing to review charges against Detective Richard Lewis (petitioner) for alleged violations of Housing Police Department rules and regulations.
- A Trial Officer conducted the hearing, made findings that Lewis was guilty of several charges, and recommended a penalty of five days’ suspension.
- The New York City Housing Authority adopted the findings of the Trial Officer and imposed the recommended penalty.
- Richard Lewis commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, to review the determination of the New York City Housing Authority.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an administrative agency's determination, finding an off-duty police officer/ordained minister guilty of departmental violations for asserting clergy privilege, supported by substantial evidence when the record indicates the individual sought him out at a church, the officer was dressed as a civilian, and he reasonably believed he was approached in his ministerial capacity?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, an administrative agency's determination, finding an off-duty police officer/ordained minister guilty of departmental violations for asserting clergy privilege, is not supported by substantial evidence when the record indicates the individual sought him out at a church, the officer was dressed as a civilian, and he reasonably believed he was approached in his ministerial capacity. The court concluded that the Trial Officer’s findings that Lewis was approached in his capacity as a police officer and that there was no evidence to support his belief of being approached as a minister were not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact." The record was devoid of any proof that the person who found the weapon came to Lewis as a law enforcement agent. To the contrary, the circumstances supported Lewis's position that the surrender of the weapon constituted a privileged communication to a clergyman under CPLR 4505, as it provided a "reason to believe that the information sought [from petitioner] required the disclosure of information [which] was in [some] way confidential," citing Matter of Keenan v Gigante and Matter of Puglisi v Pignato*. The court highlighted the significance of the individual going to a church with the item, not a police precinct, and noted the Trial Officer’s erroneous finding that Lewis accepted the firearm on the church steps. Regarding charges related to vouchering the firearm, the court observed that testimony from police witnesses indicated it was a common and acceptable practice for an officer who is neither the finder nor the arresting officer to voucher property in another officer’s name. Considering Lewis’s highly decorated 18-year service record, it was unlikely he would lightly subordinate his police responsibilities.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the clergy-penitent privilege (CPLR 4505) in the unusual context of an off-duty police officer who also serves as an ordained minister. It emphasizes that the specific circumstances and context of a communication are paramount in determining whether a privilege applies, especially when an individual holds multiple professional roles. The decision underscores that administrative determinations, particularly those impacting fundamental privileges, must be supported by genuine "substantial evidence" rather than mere assumptions or speculative findings. This case serves as a precedent affirming that an administrative body cannot override a reasonable belief in a privileged communication without compelling contradictory evidence, reinforcing due process in administrative hearings.
