# Krolick v. Lowery

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · June 26, 1969 · 32 A.D.2d 317

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5769932

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of William Krolick v. Robert O. Lowery, as Fire Commissioner of the Fire Department of the City of New York, In the Matter of Fred E. Vyse v. Robert O. Lowery, as Fire Commissioner of the Fire Department of the City of New York
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** June 26, 1969
- **Citations:** 32 A.D.2d 317; 302 N.Y.S.2d 109; 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3600
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McGivern
- **Judges:** Eager, McGivern, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5769932

## Opinion text

McGivern, J. (dissenting in part).
I dissent only to the extent I would annul the determination with respect to the defendant Krolick as lacking in substantial evidence. Reasonable grounds justifying a belief he was intoxicated are absent. In fact, he was acquitted of any charge relating to 4 4 intoxicating liquors ” while on duty. He passed all the standard tests. The Captain said: 4 4 there was nothing to indicate that his condition was anything but normal. ’ ’ What then caused the order he submit a blood sample for testing? The merest suspicion that a faint odor might be alcohol. We must have grounds more weighty than this to surmount the constitutional objections stressed by Mr. Justice Eager in his dissent. Although, I do not agree with the suggestion advanced in this dissent that the right to exact a blood sample is permissible only if related to a criminal offense.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5769932. Public record. Not legal advice.