After he stopped a man who was driving without a license, Officer Manual
Mateo allegedly offered to not write up a ticket if the driver agreed
to do some work on the cop’s home.
The NYPD investigated the incident and secured the testimony of two witnesses,
including the driver, who both testified that Mateo had made the illicit
deal. (The investigation also revealed evidence of subsequent phone calls
between the officer and the two individuals who were in the car.)
Two years after he was terminated, when one of the main witnesses recanted
his testimony, Mateo requested--and was denied--a new hearing. On appeal,
the Appellate Division, First Department, didn’t think a do-over
was needed because of all the other evidence which supported the outcome.
Did they cop an attitude?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division’s decision, please use
this link:
Mateo v. Kelly