There is substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner committed acts prejudicial to the good order, efficiency and discipline of the Police Department. In making this determination, the Commissioner, unlike the courts, was empowered to substitute his judgment for that of the hearing officer (see, Matter of Shurgin v. Ambach, 56 N.Y.2d 700). Petitioner's dismissal was not so disproportionate to his offenses as to shock our sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v. Bd. of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 234, 237; compare, Matter of Short v. Looney, 29 N.Y.2d 578). Petitioner's continued defense of the insignificance, if not the propriety, of his actions, even in this Court, further lends support to the penalty imposed.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.