New York Civil Service Attorney Law Blog

New York Civil Service Attorney Law Blog

NYPD Disqualification Appeals for Disqualified Candidates

Posted in NYPD disqualification appeals attorney

We continue to assist candidates that have been disqualified from the NYPD.  for over 12 years we have assisted candidates that received letters for NYPD psych disqualification, NYPD character or background disqualification or NYPD medical disqualification.  In each of these areas we have had success in appealing the grounds for disqualification.

It is crucial for you to have a NYC Civil Service disqualification appeals attorney assist you in your fight to appeal your disqualification.  I frequently appear at the NYC Civil Service Commission to argue on behalf of my clients that their disqualification was improper.

NYPD psychological disqualification and NYC Department of Corrections psychological disqualifications are frequently appealed.  It is important to hire someone that knows the area thoroughly and has appeared before the Civil Service Commission and knows their rules and procedures and how they have decided cases in the past.

We offer a free consultation for your NYPD disqualification case. Please call us toll free at (888)-998-9984 to discuss your case or you can contact me.

To read about some NYPD disqualification cases visit my blog at civilservice.sheerinlaw.com

Can employee placed on union paid release time be shielded from discipline?

Posted in Civil Service, Civil Service Discipline

This is the question that was posed in the case of petitioner versus Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority “MABSTOA”

The Appellate Division First Department decided that it was violative of public policy to allow the union to place an employee who was to be disciplined on union paid release time. The lower court Judge in the Supreme Court, New York County held that imposing discipline on an employee on release time violated the collective bargaining agreement(CBA).  Since the authority violated the collective bargaining agreement the lower court judge held that an arbitrator’s award reinstating the employee should be confirmed.

The First Department held that the CBA award which reinstated a sexual offender ran counter to the strong public policy against sexual harassment and the workplace. Accordingly, the CBA cannot protect employees from discipline for sexual harassment was this would violate public policy. You can read about this  New York City civil-service discipline case by clicking here.

DCAS Special Officer Disqualification Reversed

Posted in Civil Service, Employment Law, Uncategorized

In a lawsuit brought by the New York community service Society for petitioner, KM, Judge Moulton of the New York County Supreme Court Held That BOTH the Department of Citywide Administrative Services and the New York City Civil Service Commission Failed to Consider Correction Law Article 23 a in Disqualifying the Petitioner. Petitioner applied for DCAS special officer title was disqualied. She appeal to the New York City Civil Service Commission who upheld the disqualification. Article 23 – A of the New York State Correction Law which was enacted in 1976 attempts to eliminate the effect of bias against ex-offenders by imposing an obligation on employers and public agencies to deal equitably with them by setting out a broad general rule that employers and public agencies cannot deny employment or license to an applicant solely based on the applicant status as an ex-offender.

Read about this Article 78 Civil Service Job disqualification case by clicking here.

TLC Article 78 case

Posted in Uncategorized

Petitioner taxicab driver was found to have overcharged passengers on three occasions. Nonetheless he was only adjudicated once as having done so. The Appellate Division, first Department found that the driver had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because despite multiple overcharging incidents he had only been adjudicated one time is having overcharged. The regulation 35 RC NY 54 – 02 (e) states that the taxi and limousine commission “shall revoke” when there are three findings by the TLC of overcharging. Since this was a discretionary revocation case the driver was required to file an internal appeal to the Commission prior to filing and Article 78 suit.

The court also found that there was substantial evidence in the record that respondent taxicab driver had a specific intent to overcharge riders.

 

Read about this TLC Article 78 Case.

New York City violates due process law in Civil Service Law section 71 and 73 case

Posted in Accidental Disability Pensions, Civil Service

Employee of Department of Environmental Protection was found to have been illegally terminated when New York City failed to give proper notice in Civil Service Law section 73 and Civil Service Law section 71 case.

Originally petitioner was terminated for failing to reply to a effort to terminate him for  non occupational injury. Later<, respondents New York City changed  the termination cause to a different section of the Civil Serivce Law section 71 without giving the employee Notice of the pending termination and an opportunity to be heard.

Section 73 involves termination for nonoccupational injuries. Civil service law section 71 relates to termination for occupational or on-the-job injuries. Part of the strategy and controversy was whether the employee of DEP should have conceded he received a  non-occupational injury at the same time his workers compensation case was being contested.

The city and improperly changed the termination effort to an occupational injury without giving notice to the petitioner or opportunity for the petitioner be heard regarding whether he actually suffered an on the job injury.

This retroactive change of the type of injury was found by the court to be improper.

Judge Alexander Hunter the Supreme Court held that the question of the hearing was a moot question in so far as the notice and opportunity to be heard was violated.

County failed to Comply with Supreme Court order-Contemp threathened for continuing refusal

Posted in Civil Service

 What happens when a County fails to follow the order of a Supreme Court Judge?

In Fulton County the president of the local PBA filed an Article 78 to compel an exam for the civil service title of Investigator.  When the position of Investigator was created the court ruled that the county charter, CBA and NYS CSL required that title be sent to the municipal civil service commission for review.  When the lower court ordered that the title be sent to the Commission the Fire and Police Boards adopted a resolution granting permanent status to incumbent Investigators. Thereafter, Dailey filed an Article 78 to hold the Board in contempt for failure to follow the court order.  The Appellate Division, Fourth Department held that it was a violation of Civil Service Law to issue the resolution and declare the incumbent’s permanent.  

Permanent Teacher’s termination reversed by NYC Appeals Court

Posted in 3020a, Article 78, Civil Service, Civil Service Discipline, Teacher Issues

The Petitioner was a teacher with the NYC DOE for 21 years. He received "S" ratings for his first 18 years.  He was assigned a classroom with children performing 2 to 3 years below grade level.  The teacher requested an aide or assistant; he was denied help. The teacher received a "U" rating in 2008 and availed himself of the PIP program.

Teacher was cited for 3 issues in getting the "U" rating: class control, planning issues and managing students.  After 3 consecutive "U"s he was charged with 9 specifications.  The hearing officer found the teacher guilty and recommended termination.  

Petitioner filed suit pursuant to CPLR 7511.  The Appellate Division, First Department agreed with the Hearing Officer finding on the charges but held that the "penalty of termination shocks one’s sense of fairness."  The court detailing the teachers improvements over the three years and agreed with the teachers stance on the PIP program being haphazard and the teachers supervisors being inconsistent in their advice and observations.  The case was remanded to the hearing officer for the imposition of a lesser penalty.

Read about this NYC DOE 3020-1 and CPLR 7511 case here.  

If you are interested in Criminal Defense case please visit Long Island DWI attorney.

Probationary Assistant Principal’s Article 78 Appealing U Rating denied.

Posted in Article 78, Teacher Issues

 A New York City High School teacher resigned in 2008 for personal reasons.  He was brought back as a probationary assistant principal.  While assistant principal he was charged for two incidents of misconduct.  He was given a "U" rating and terminated while on probation.  He filed an Article 78 which was denied and his case was dismissed.

The Petitioner alleged racial bias in his termination but Judge Kern ruled that the investigating agencies were not alleged to have been biased in their investigation therefore the bias claim was denied.

Petitioner did not gain tenune be estoppel because he resigned from his teacher position in 2008.

Finally Petitioner was not entitled to discover in this special proceeding because he did not show the need for such.

This case can be read at

Article 78 versus ECB granted

Posted in Article 78

 After an ECB hearing 50 West Realty Company LP was fined $500 for changing its building to a use inconsistent with its 1992 CO.  The company filed an Article 78 to appeal.  

An Article 78 filed for a decision after a hearing was held is subject to the standard of "substantial evidence."  That is, was there substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s decision?  

In this case it was determined that because the Respondent, ECB did not have witnesses and no evidence that 50 West Realty had changed the building inconsistent with the last CO the finding and fine were dismissed.

Read about this Article 78 versus ECB here.