New York Civil Service Attorney Law Blog : New York Civil Service Lawyer & Attorney : Kevin P. Sheerin : Article 78 : Serving New York City, Long Island, Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island

A new Civil Service Bill, S4562, was passed that will change the probationary period for employees of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation appointed to a title on the non-competitive class to one year. The current five-year probationary period is considered unfair and unnecessary by many health workers. This new bill shortens the probationary period to one year which should be adequate time for a competent manager to determine that an employee is performing at a competent level and is deserving of the right to a hearing prior to being fired.

Read more about the new Civil Service bill here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The MMPI2 is one of the standard psychological tests administered to Police Department candidates. Above is an interesting video prepared by a Canadian Police Preparatory school on the MMPI2.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Various occupations require Certificates of Fitness. To read more about the Certificate of Fitness that the Fire Department of the City of New York City issues, you can visit the following website. This website provides information about testing procedures, fees, and the verification process.

Learn more about the FDNY Certificate of Fitness here.

To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Brian Ball, a former Greece Police Sergeant, was accused of falsifying a document in a fatal car crash back in 2005. He allegedly closed the case before the toxicology report on the driver in question was completed. The toxicology test came back positive for marijuana.

Ball appealed and the judge ruled that Ball was not given adequate opportunity to testify on his own behalf in front of the grand jury that indicted him. The judge also found that the people’s case was lacking in substance and that the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case that Ball committed the alleged crimes.

The District Attorney plans to appeal this decision and the family of the 18-year-old woman who was killed in the crash is angry, devastated, and disheartened by the ruling.

Read full article here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York State Department of Civil Service has a detailed Summary of Civil Service Law available. To find out more about civil service law, check out this PDF file: www.cs.state.ny.us/pio/publications/summofcsl.pdf.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For those individuals interested in obtaining job placement for the New York City government, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services created Exams for Jobs.  Exams for Jobs offers schedules of civil service exams, descriptions of jobs and qualifications, and other helpful exam taking information.  Click here to view the Exams for Jobs booklet for more information on exam schedules, locations, and available positions.

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

Chacko v New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services

In a recent case handled by the Law Offices of Kevin P. Sheerin, Plaintiff Joseph Chacko, commenced this Article 78 appeal to challenge New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS’) determination that he failed a civil service promotional exam. Petitioner contended that DCAS scored the essay portion of his exam in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

In March of 2006, petitioner took a promotional examination that consisted of two parts: a multiple choice test and an essay. To score the essay portion, DCAS utilized a Rating Guide consisting of two sections, one that assessed the content of the essay and the other that focused on the clarity. This Rating Guide was used incorrectly to grade petitioner’s essay. Points were taken off for minor mistakes and in some cases nonexistent errors. Fundamental fairness dictates that deductions should not be made for correct responses. Also points taken off for the same mistake were categorized in different categories, which allowed the grader to circumvent the limit on point deductions set for each category of error. Additionally, petitioner argued that he was denied scrap paper and that the proctors ended the exam twenty minutes early thereby denying him the time to proofread his essay.

Accordingly, the Court granted the petition, annulled the decision of the Civil Service Commission, and remanded the matter for the regrading of petitioner’s exam.  Shortly thereafter Mr. Chacko was promoted to Supervisor.

To read the Judge's final disposition on this case, click on the following link: civilservice.sheerinlaw.com/uploads/file/Schlesinger Final Disposition.pdf

To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Michael Picciano v Nassau County Civil Service Commission

The plaintiff in this case was denied appointment as a correctional officer due to his color vision deficiency. The Commission advised him of their decision and informed him that any submissions must be filed within 15 days. 

On November 22 the plaintiff attempted to fight the decision, but the Commission proceeded to inform him that it was too late. In May of the next year the plaintiff file an action against the Commission claiming that his disqualification was unlawful discrimination. He sought restoration to eligibility list, appointment to correctional officer position and damages in the form of lost pay and benefits. 

Plaintiff also filed a late notice of claim which the Supreme Court determined allowable on the basis that the Plaintiff’s uncertainty over whether a notice of claim was needed was enough of an excuse for the Plaintiff’s failure to provide one in a timely manner. The issue was appealed, but it stood that the Supreme Court appropriately exercised its discretion in permitting late notice of claim. 

To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

According to Lisa Colangelo from the Daily News, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services is attempting to ease the process of taking civil service exams. Besides the early Saturday morning written exams DCAS is now operating a Computerizes Testing Center on LaFayette St, in Manhattan where candidates are able to walk in and take tests several times a week. This is an attempt to get the city a greater selection of applicants who can apply on their time. During July five tests are being offered: police officer, correction officer, traffic enforcement agent, environmental police officer, and eligibility specialist. 

After successfully passing the test a list is created by the city that is valid for four years. These tests are being offered in anticipation that the city will have openings in the near future. The best way to find out more about exams is the DCAS website (www.nyc.gov/dcas). There is information on locations and required materials for upcoming tests, promotional tests, and past exams. You are able to apply and pay application fees online and it is also recommended that applicants call 311 or (212) 669-1357 to check schedules.   

Read the article by the New York Daily News Civil Service Reporter here.

To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The City University of New York (CUNY) has its own Civil Service Commission.  The commission hears and determines complaints of violations of NYS Civil Service Laws and the CUNY rules and regulations.  The CUNY website is an extensive resourse on the functions of the CUNY Civil Service Commission.  It can be found at web.cuny.edu/jobs/civil-service/ccsc.html.

Further New York State Civil Service Law information can be found at www.sheerinlaw.com/civil

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

Matter of James Cotter v Board of Education of Garden City Union Free School District Board of Education

Back in 2008, I wrote about a Nassau County Supreme Court Decision (J. Feinman) which held that the Garden City School District did not have to defend or indemnify a teacher involved in a fight with another teacher while they were grading Regent’s exams. (You can read that post here.)

The Second Department reversed the prior determination and ordered the school district to defend the teacher who was the target of a civil suit.

This Article 78 case was brought about to review the determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request to defend and indemnify himself in an action pending in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court originally denied the petition and dismissed the motion which resulted in this Article 78 appeal.

Petitioner was involved in a physical altercation with a fellow teacher while grading Regents examinations in the school library. Petitioner was in charge of a group of teachers and directed his co-worker, Philip McCarthy, to sit down and continue grading papers. McCarthy then threw water at petitioner and petitioner proceeded to place him in a head-lock. After this incident, McCarthy filed a civil action against petitioner to recover damages for the assault and respondent refused to defend and indemnify the petitioner.

The Court feels that it was unreasonable for the respondent to deny petitioner’s request due to the circumstances of the altercation. The incident occurred on school grounds while the petitioner and McCarthy were on duty grading exams and therefore could not be considered “wholly personal”.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment, granted the petition, annulled the determination and directed respondent to defend and indemnity petitioner in the subject action.

Read full article here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Back in July of 2007, we blogged about some issues that Long Beach was having with provisional appointments in civil service positions. Long Beach is not alone in their struggles, recently Cleveland has been experiencing a similar situation. Much like Long Beach, Cleveland is now fighting a legal battle to determine whether the hiring of civil service employees was done fairly. Cleveland’s Judge McGinty ruled in favor of the employee organizations against the charter amendment that would allow hundreds of municipal workers to keep their jobs without taking any qualifying civil service exams.

You can read more about Cleveland’s civil service feud here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This week, Lisa Colangelo, writes about the ongoing controversy concerning residency requirements for city employees. Many city workers are no longer required to live within the five boroughs of New York City. All uniformed workers – police officers, firefighters, correction officers and sanitation officers – are allowed to live in the surrounding counties and north in New York State. The city’s largest union, District Council 37, recently won the right to live outside of city limits. Now several other unions, including Teamsters Local 237 and Communication Workers of America Local 1180, are pushing to get residency requirements lifted by ways of a bill, Intro. 992. Some individuals feel that residency requirements should be eliminated all together for the sake of fairness but this suggestion does not sit well with the city.

Read full article here.

To read about Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Any individual or entity who feels that they have been aggrieved by an action or decision of the President of the Civil Service Commission may file an appeal to the Commission.

The aggrieved party (“appellant”) should submit the appeal with all necessary supporting documents, in writing, according to the deadlines pertaining to the subject of the appeal. The appeal should include a copy of the final determination letter from the Commission as well as any documents and information supporting appellant’s appeal. If unsure of the statute or time restrictions on the appeal, appellants should file with the Commission within thirty days of receiving the written determination.

After receiving an appeal, the Commission will send out an Acknowledgment of Appeal and process the appeal internally. Once they have received all relevant information, the Commission will notify appellant that the appeal will be presented to the Commission. The Commission generally considers an appeal based on the papers submitted. The appellant may request to appear before the Commission to present their appeal and if the Commission agrees, they will inform appellant, in writing, of the date, time and place of the appeal.

The appellant may appear before the Commission with or without representation. If the appellant choices to appear with a representative, they will be provided the opportunity to present arguments in support of their positions. The proceedings are informal and formal rules of evidence do not apply. No oaths are administered and individuals are not subject to cross-examination. If the appellant or their representative fails to appear at the scheduled hearing, the appeal will be determined based on the appellant’s written submissions.

After all evidence and arguments have been presented, the Commission will deliberate and determine whether to grant or deny the appeal. All final decisions will be made in writing. The Commission will mail the appellant a copy of the final decision as well as posting it on the Commission’s public website.

Read the full guidelines here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Norgrove v. Board of Education of the City School District of NYC

This Article 78 proceeding was brought about by petitioner, a tenured mathematics teacher of 28 years, to annul determination of respondents, Board of Education of the City School District of New York, terminating his employment. Petitioner is also seeking retroactive reinstatement with full back salary.

In December 2006, the Board of Education advised petitioner via hand-delivered letters that a serious allegation was made against him and that he was reassigned to Region 8 Human Resources. In May 2007, petitioner received another hand-delivered letter entitled “Notice of Charges” (“First Notice”) informing him of the nature of the complaint being filed against him. The Board of Education also sent this letter via certified and regular mail addressed to petitioner. According to petitioner, the address respondents used was old and he moved in 2003. Later that month the Board of Education mailed petitioner a Second Notice at the address they had on file. In the Second Notice respondents advised petitioner that he had 10 days to request a hearing. Petitioner asserts that he never received this notice since it was not sent to his correct address and therefore he was unable to submit a timely request for hearing.

In October 2007, the Chairperson of the Panel for Education Policy wrote a letter to petitioner detailing the events occurring since the charges in May, the Panel’s findings and indicating petitioners’ termination. Petitioner was then hand-delivered a letter stating he had been terminated. Petitioner immediately informed his union representative who contacted the Board of Education to request a hearing but the request was denied. Petitioner then filed a Notice of Claim in January 2008 and commenced the instant Article 78 proceeding in February 2008.

Petitioner argues that since he did not receive the notice regarding his right to a hearing, the Board of Education’s termination of his employment without the due process hearing deprived him of property rights in his tenured position and was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, a violation of lawful procedure, and a violation of his rights. The Court agrees because the Board of Education had an obligation to take additional steps to effect notice after the certified mail to petitioner was returned unclaimed.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled respondents’ determination terminating petitioner’s employment, and ordered respondents to reinstate petitioner with full salary and benefits retroactive to November 26, 2007.

Read full article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Roslyn Rosenfeld has been selling civil service test books for 55 years now at her Civil Service Bookshop at 89 Worth Street in Lower Manhattan. The bookstore offers a wide range of test preparation manuals for every civil service exam imaginable from the more common jobs like police officer and fire fighter to budget examiner and fingerprint technician. Ms. Rosenfeld is worried that she may have to move her shop due to the landlord possibly taking the building in a different direction. Business wise, her shop is doing well since the civil service exams and constantly being given and people come in to buy practice tests and guide books.

Read full article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Supreme Court Justice decided to extend a temporary restraining order barring Colonie’s personnel chief, Michael Foley, from considering the appeals of two demoted highway supervisors for another ten days. The stay was first issued in December 2008 after the town sough to freeze the process arguing that the supervisors had already appealed their demotions and that Foley had a conflict of interest.

The Town Board demoted these two men in December 2008 and they subsequently appealed to Foley and commenced a lawsuit on the town in Supreme Court alleging that the public works commissioner and not the Town Board had the authority to discipline them. Originally, the supervisors received suspensions without pay for two months which the town then changed to demotions with pay cuts.

The judge wants to prevent Foley from taking any action regarding the appeals until after he has a chance to hear arguments on both the pending lawsuits.

Read article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Boakye-Yiadom v Roosevelt Union Free School District

Plaintiff brought about an action to recover damages for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and defamation. The Supreme Court denied granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiff commenced this appeal.

Education Law requires that any complaint against the school district or board of education must be presented to the governing body of said district or school within three months after the accrual of the claim. Therefore, a claim against a school district on an action alleging breach of contract or promissory estoppel based on a contract must be served in a timely manner and since plaintiff failed to serve the notice of claim within three months, the Court properly dismissed the claim.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the order, with costs.

Read full article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New York is holding a Civil Service exam for certain management jobs for the first time in three years. In March 2009, tests for Professional Careers and Professional Careers (Diversity Management) will be held. If you are interested in either of these tests, you must possess a bachelor’s degree or plan to earn one before August 31, 2009 and must register by January 5, 2009. For more details, visit the state Civil Service website here.

College seniors and recent graduates interested in how the city government works should check out New York City’s Urban Fellows Program, sponsored by the Department of Citywide Administrative Services. This nine-month fellowship provides the opportunity to work in various city agencies and the mayor’s office. Individuals interested should submit their applications prior to January 9, 2009. More information can be found on the DCAS website.

For anyone who enjoys a good laugh and supporting children with autism, there will be a comedy show featuring retired city cops and firefighters on January 10, 2009 at The Jeanne Rimsky Theater in Port Washington, Long Island at 7:00 pm. Tickets range from $30 to $75 and all proceeds go to the ELIJA School in Levittown. For more information contact Tim Dwyer at (917) 612-8439.

Read full article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Patrolemen’s Benevolent Association of City of Long Beach, Inc. v City of Long Beach

The City of Long Beach appealed from a decision of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of plaintiff, Patrolemen’s Benevolent Association of the City of Long Beach, Inc. (PBA), converting the matter from an Article 78 to an action, granting the motion for summary judgment directing specific performances of stipulations and agreements, and declaring these stipulations and agreements legally binding and enforceable.

The stipulations and agreements concerned three grievances by the PBA regarding sick leave retirement computations, night differential pay calculations, and a disciplinary action brought against 17 of its members. After converting this matter from an Article 78 to an action, the Supreme Court declared the stipulations and agreements legally binding and enforceable between the parties. The City of Long Beach then commenced this appeal.

The Court found that City’s arguments that the stipulations and agreements required approval by the City Counsel to bind the parties to be without merit.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeals from the orders, affirmed the judgment, and awarded plaintiff with one bill of costs.

Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of Long Beach, Inc. v City of Long Beach (2008 NY Slip Op 09573)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Seabrook v City of New York

Petitioner, Norman Seabrook, brought about this appeal to challenge the Supreme Court decision to dismiss his complaint. Employees are not allowed to consult with a union representation after a question is posed and before an answer must be given. The purpose of this policy is to prevent coaching and to encourage truthful responses during an interrogation. The policy does not deprive the employee of his right to representation by his union.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the order dismissing the complaint, without costs.

Seabrook v City of New York (2008 NY Slip Op 09471)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Tardif v Town of Southold

Plaintiff, John Tardif, brought about an action to recover damages for age discrimination in this appeal of the Supreme Court decision granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff alleged that the Town of Southold and the Town’s police department did not appoint him as a police officer due to discrimination on the basis of his age. Plaintiff argued that he had “the best qualifications” and “the number one test score” on the police officer examination.

Defendants argued that they did not discriminate against plaintiff due to his age but that the reason they did not hire him was because he submitted deceptive responses in his police officer application. The defendants thus established that they had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact concerning whether he was deprived of his constitutional right to due process, whether he was entitled to a name-clearing hearing, whether he was deprived of a protected liberty interest, and whether he was denied equal protection.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint, with costs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Joseph Confreda v New York State Comptroller

This Article 78 proceeding was brought about by petitioner, Joseph Confreda, to review a determination of respondent Comptroller denying petitioner accidental disability retirement benefits. Petitioner was employed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey as a police officer. In January 2005 while on the job, petitioner slipped and fell on accumulated snow and ice on a wooden plan in front of his command post. He was denied accidental disability retirement benefits because his incident was considered not an accident. Petitioner requested a redetermination and the Hearing Officer denied the petition on the same grounds. Petitioner then commenced this Article 78 appeal.

The burden of proof relies on the petitioner to prove that the injury was accidental. Petitioner testified that he had walked across the plank multiple times during his shift without noticing any snow or ice. In the injury report, petitioner wrote that he “slipped and fell on snow and ice covering [the] plywood”. Since his written statement describes the plank as being ice covered, the Court concluded that petitioner should have been aware of this dangerous condition and been able to anticipate the possibility of falling.

Accordingly, the Court confirmed the determination, without costs, and dismissed the petition.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Gerard O’Brien v New York State Comptroller

This Article 78 proceeding was brought about by petitioner, Gerard O’Brien, to review a determination of respondent Comptroller denying petitioner accidental disability retirement benefits. Petitioner was employed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey as a police officer. In June 2003, petitioner sustained a knee injury while on the job. Petitioner stepped backwards and caught his foot on a sewer grate. He was denied accidental disability retirement benefits because his incident was considered not an accident. Petitioner requested a redetermination and the Hearing Officer denied the petition on the same grounds. Petitioner then commenced this Article 78 appeal.

The burden of proof relies on the petitioner to prove that the injury was accidental. Petitioner testified to being aware of the sewer grates presence but that the grate had been covered by plywood and he did not know that on the day of the incident, the grate was uncovered. The Court thus confirmed the previous rulings that the incident was not an accident. The reasoning behind this decision was that since petitioner was aware of the sewer grate the hazard was therefore something petitioner “could have reasonably anticipated”.

Accordingly, the Court confirmed the determination, without costs, and dismissed the petition.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

Frequenlty I get calls in my office inquirying about what would disqualifiy a candidate from the NYPD.  The NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) is the personnel office  for New York City and they make the rules for applicants for NYC positions.  On the DCAS website they list the following list concerning factors that may disqualify a candidate from the NYPD:

The following are factors which would ordinarily be cause for disqualification:

• Conviction of an offense which indicates lack of good moral character or disposition towards violence or disorder, or which is punishable by one or more years imprisonment.

• Repeated convictions of an offense which indicate disrespect for the law.

• Discharge from employment as a result of poor behavior or inability to adjust to discipline.

• *Dishonorable discharge from the United States Military.

• Conviction of an offense for Domestic Violence Misdemeanors.

• *A Felony conviction.

• Statutory Disqualification (disqualified by law)

• The DCAS website overview of the NYPD application process can be accessed by clicking on the following link: www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/careers/application_overview.shtml

A candidate that receives a disqualification from the NYPD other law enforcement or civil service positions can contact my office to see if an appeal would be appropriate:

Toll-Free (888) 998-9984
Law Office of Kevin P. Sheerin
323 Willis Ave, Suite 1
Mineola, New York 11501

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Town of Wallkill Police Benevolent Association

This Article 75 proceeding was brought about to vacate an arbitration decision that the Town of Wallkill violated the collective bargaining agreement. The issue at hand was whether the Town of Wallkill violated the collective bargaining agreement between it and the Town of Wallkill Police Benevolent Association (PBA) by placing a Town police officer on modified duty and not permitting him to serve overtime following an incident in December 2003. The arbitrator found that the collective bargaining agreement was violated and ordered the police officer be returned to full duty and be compensated for the overtime he was denied. The Supreme Court agreed that vacating the arbitration award would not be warranted since it was not irrational nor did it violate a strong public policy.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the judgment affirmed, with costs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has decided to cancel January’s class of police officers in an effort to bridge billion-dollar deficits. This decision will affect more than 1,000 cadets. The next class will begin in July. This is only one of several extreme measures that Mayor Bloomberg is putting into effect to guide New York City through the economic slowdown that is only just beginning. New Yorkers can expect the city work force to shrink by 3,000 employees – 500 through layoffs and the rest through attrition with 475 job cuts in the education department. Other budget cuts include the firefighter training academy reducing its program time and the Department of Health closing its dental health clinics that serve poor children.

 

Read full article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

DEP v. Nuccio and Williamson  OATH Index #s 2360/08 &2361/08 (9/26/08)

Response to 911 call without supervisory approval was proper. 

Nuccio and Williamson were experienced officers who patrolled watershed areas in upstate New York. In May of 2007 the DEP issued an interim order directing officers not to respond to 911 calls without supervisory approval.  This directive was to avoid DEP officers responding to routine calls in local jurisdictions. In Ulster County a 911 call generates a 911 "poll" seeking response from local law enforcement.  When a 911 "poll" is transmitted the DEP supervisor would authorize a DEP response.  

On 10/2/07 when Nuccio and Williamson were patrolling near the Ashokan Reservoir Ulster County received a 911 call for a domestic violence complaint across from the Reservoir.  Respondent's were 2 to 3 miles away at the time of the call.  No units responded to the first poll and it was retransmitted. Thereafter, respondents picked up the call.  They called their base and asked the officer assigned to desk duty to get the supervisors approval.  Sergeant Wood called the base and denied the officer request to handle the domestic violence 911 call. Inspector Milazzo overturned the Sergeant's disapproval after learning that the officers had already comitted to pick up the job to the 911 operator.

ALJ Kevin Casey analyzed the "obey now, grieve later" principal as it applied to the respondents action.  Common sense dicates that the "obey now, grieve later" concept does not apply and common sense dictates that orders do not apply when adherence would pose a threat to health and safety of employees or others. Officers must show that an imminent threat justifies disobedience of an order.  eg.  officer with allergies, asthma, heart disease justified not reporting to site near Ground Zero;  failure to inspect justified not operating vehicle.  HRA v. Dottin OATH Index 1260/02 and DOS v. Jones OATH Index 2186/99 respectively. 

Judge Casey ruled that the respondents proved that the health and safety exception applied and dismissed the charges against the officers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

City of New York v. Patrolman’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York Inc.

This appeal was brought about to review the decision of the Supreme Court granting a petition and annulling the determination of respondent New York City Board of Collective Bargaining finding that petitioners violated the collective bargaining agreement with respondent unions. Petitioners argue that changing the method of random drug testing from urinalysis to hair analysis by NYPD should be exempt from collective bargaining because it involves the disciplinary authority of the Police Commissioner.

 

In August 2005, the NYPD stopped using urinalysis as its preferred method of random drug screening and switched to radioimmunoassay of hair (RIAH) without consulting with the unions. The unions protested by filing an improper practice petition with the New York City Office of Collective Bargaining (OCB). The OCB granted the unions’ petition, finding that NYPD violated NYC Collective Bargaining Law §12-306(a)(4) by “unilaterally changing drug testing procedures, a mandatory subject of bargaining.”

 

The NYPD then brought about an instant Article 78 proceeding to annul this decision as arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court granted the petition holding that it was arbitrary and capricious for the OCB to rule that the choice of testing was not related to the Police Commissioner’s disciplinary authority. The Court felt that forcing the Commissioner to negotiate with the police officers that would be subjected to the testing would make his authority appear meaningless.

 

In this review of the first ruling of the Supreme Court, the Court felt petitioners were seeking to avoid their obligation of collective bargaining by extending the Commissioner’s investigatory authority beyond the context of formal disciplinary proceedings to which it is confined. The reason the limitation of authority exists is to create a balance between the concerns of public employees and the disciplinary authority of the Commissioner.

 

Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision, denied the petition and reinstated the determination of the Board of Collective Bargaining.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Karl v. NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services

This Article 78 proceeding was brought about by Petitioner, Brian Karl, to compel New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) to accept his application for a Master Fire Suppression Piping Contractor (Fire Suppression). Petitioner is a Master Plumber who has been installing fire suppression systems under the supervision of a Licensed Master Plumber for 12 years.

 

Prior to 1990, licensed Master Plumbers were permitted to install fire suppression systems. Then the law changed so that only a specifically licensed Master Fire Suppression Piping Contractor could work with fire suppression systems. On July 1, 2008, the requirements for a Fire Suppression license changed from requiring 7 years of plumbing experience with at least 3 years in fire suppression experience to requiring 7 years of fire suppression experience within the ten-year period prior to the application.

 

Petitioner met the requirements of the old law but not the new one and attempted to file an application for the next Fire Suppression license exam, hoping to qualify for the license under the old rules. DCAS declined to accept his application because the 2008 exam had already passed and no date had been set for the 2009 exam. Petitioner then commenced this proceeding in the nature of mandamus to compel the city to accept his application.

 

Petitioner Karl argued that DCAS had a duty to accept his application when he sought to file it in May 2008. The Court asserts that mandamus relief is not available because there is not “a clear and absolute legal right to the relief sought.” Karl failed to cite any statute or regulation that would support his claim that he had a clear legal right to file an application in May or that DCAS had an absolute duty to accept it at that time. Also, the Rules of the City of New York place the burden of acquiring information concerning exams and new laws solely on the applicant making Karl’s argument that he was entitled to advance notice obsolete.

 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Smith v. New York City Department of Education

This Article 75 case was brought about by Petitioner, Theodore Smith, to challenge the decision and penalty, a one-year suspension without pay. Petitioner was a tenured New York City physical education teacher who had multiple allegations of misconduct, insubordination, incompetence and dereliction. The Arbitrator trying the case found Petitioner guilty of most of the specifications.

 

Mr. Smith challenged this decision, arguing that virtually every aspect of the disciplinary process violated his due process right to a fair and unpartial hearing. Specifically, the performance of the second Arbitrator, Edelman, who made his decision based solely on the transcript of the proceedings before the first Arbitrator. The first Arbitrator recused himself of the case due to an alleged death threat made by Mr. Smith. This information was then passed along to the second Arbitrator. Arbitrator Edelman did not grant Smith a hearing de novo and based his findings on considerations of credibility without seeing and hearing the witness.

 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the decision by Arbitrator Edelman, and remanded the matter for a new hearing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Stephen Russell v New York Citywide Administrative Services

This Article 78 case was brought about by Petitioner, Stephen Russel to challenge his termination and to review a determination of the New York City Transit Authority dated April 13, 1989. The New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) terminated petitioner’s temporary employment as a bridge and tunnel officer because he omitted information concerning a prior misdemeanor on his employment application. The Supreme Court found that DCAS’ decision to terminate the petitioner was not arbitrary and capricious, had a rational basis, and was not made in bad faith. Also, the statute of limitations bars this appeal from being granted.

 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered the judgment affirmed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Veronica Rosario v. Metropolitan College of New York

Petitioner, Veronica Rosario, filed a verified complaint charging her former employer, the Metropolitan College of New York, with discrimination on the basis of her disability. She claimed that the College terminated her employment after discovering that she suffered from bi-polar disorder.

 

Petitioner voluntarily resigned her position at the College via e-mail during an alleged manic state. The rationale for the Division’s determination was that petitioner did not request special accommodation in connection with her bi-polar condition before, during, or after her hospitalization. Petitioner argued that a reversal of the Division’s decision was warranted due to triable issues of fact.

 

The Court felt that the Division’s investigation was adequate and permitted petitioner adequate opportunity to present her contentions and it was within the administrative body’s discretion to decide the method(s) to be employed in investigating a claim. There was no evidence that the investigation was abbreviated or one-sided and no basis to annul the determination as arbitrary and capricious.

 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed petitioner’s Article 78 application and upheld respondent’s “No Probably Cause” Determination as not arbitrary or capricious and having a rational basis.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Melvin Deas v. Judith Levitt, Director of NYC Department of Personnel

Petitioner took a promotional competitive exam in 1983 and obtained the third highest score on the list in 1984 but was deemed psychological unfit. He appealed the disqualification and underwent a second psychological evaluation. In 1985, the New York City Director of Personal disqualified petitioner for medical reasons based on the psychiatrists’ reports. Petitioner appealed the decision. On August 14, 1986, the Civil Service Commission reversed the decision and declared petitioner medically eligible. On September 5, 1986, petitioner was notified that he could not obtain the position because the eligible list expired on August 27, 1986. Petitioner then requested that his name be placed on a special eligible list. His request was denied and petitioner commenced this article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition but the Appellate Division reversed and granted the petition.

 

Petitioner argued that having successfully completed the examination he would be entitled to be considered for promotion. A competitive examination may demonstrate merit and fitness at the time of the exam but as time passes, the exam becomes a less valuable representation. Individuals who have taken a more recent exam may be more fit and better prepared. Petitioner did not allege that the eligible list was constitutionally invalid. The rule requiring civil servants to be appointed from a current and not expired list is constitutionally mandated and far from arbitrary or irrational.

 

Accordingly, the Appellate Division reversed the decision of Supreme Court and dismissed the petition reinstated, without costs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New York City Charter § 813, Chapter 35: Department of Citywide Administrative Services

 

 According to the NYC Charter § 813, the city civil service commission should consist of five members appointed by the mayor from a list of nominations provided by the screening committee. They will serve for overlapping terms of six years and be reimbursed on a per diem basis.

 

 The screening committee that provides the mayor with the mentioned list of nominees consists of six members with knowledge or experience of the civil service system, or personnel management, or compensation practices. Four of these members should be appointed by the mayor and the remaining two appointed by the municipal labor committee.

 

 The commission will appoint a counsel and may appoint a secretary or any other subordinates deemed necessary.

 

 The civil service commission has the power to hear and determine appeals by individuals aggrieved by any action or determination of the commissioner. They may affirm, modify, or reverse the action or determination in dispute. The appeals must be in writing to the commission within thirty days from the date of the action or determination.

 

 The commission has the power and duty to conduct reviews, studies, or analyses of city administrative personnel including the classification of titles by the commissioner.

 

The commission will prepare and transmit departmental estimates directly to the mayor.

 

 

 

Below is the full NYC Charter § 813:

 

LEXSTAT N.Y. CITY CHARTER 813

NEW YORK CITY CODE, CHARTER AND RULES

NEW YORK CITY CHARTER

CHAPTER 35: DEPARTMENT OF CITYWIDE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES*

NYC Charter § 813


§ 813 City civil service commission.


a. There shall be a city civil service commission, consisting of five members,
not more than three of whom shall be members of the same political party.
Members shall be appointed by the mayor, from a list of nominations provided by
the screening committee established pursuant to subdivision b of this section,
for overlapping terms of six years. Of the members first appointed, two shall
serve for two years and two for four years and one for six years. The members
shall be removable in the manner provided for members of a municipal civil
service commission in the civil service law. A vacancy in such commission shall
be filled in the same manner as regular appointments for the balance of the
unexpired term. The mayor shall designate a member as chair and vice chair,
respectively, for one-year terms. Within appropriations for such purposes, the
members of the commission shall be reimbursed on a per diem basis for attendance
at regularly scheduled meetings and hearings of the commission.

   b. There shall be a screening committee which shall submit to the mayor a
list of nominees, which shall include persons with knowledge or experience of
the civil service system, or personnel management, or compensation practices,
from which the mayor shall make appointments to the city civil service
commission. Such screening committee shall consist of six members, of whom four
shall be appointed by the mayor and two shall be appointed by the municipal
labor committee. The screening committee shall submit the list of nominees upon
the occurrence of any vacancy on the commission or at least three months prior
to the expiration of the term of any incumbent member.

   c. The commission shall appoint a counsel, who shall not be employed or
retained by any other city agency, and may appoint a secretary and such other
subordinates as may be necessary within the appropriation therefor.

   d. The civil service commission shall have the power to hear and determine
appeals by any person aggrieved by any action or determination of the
commissioner made pursuant to paragraphs three, four, five, six, seven and eight
of subdivision a or paragraph five of subdivision b of section eight hundred
fourteen of this chapter and may affirm, modify, or reverse such action or
determination. Any such appeal shall be taken by application in writing to the
commission within thirty days after the action or determination appealed from.
The commission shall also have the powers and responsibilities of a municipal
civil service commission under section seventy-six of the state civil service
law. In accordance with the requirements of chapter forty-five, the commission
shall promulgate rules of procedure, including rules establishing time
schedules, for the hearings and determinations authorized by this section.

   e. The commission, on its own initiative, or upon request of the mayor,
council, or commissioner, shall have the power and duty to conduct reviews,
studies, or analyses of the administration of personnel in the city, including
the classification of titles by the commissioner.

   f. The commission shall prepare and transmit directly to the mayor
departmental estimates as required by section two hundred thirty-one. The mayor
shall include such proposed appropriations for the commission as a separate
agency in the preliminary and executive budgets as are sufficient for the
commission to fulfill the obligations assigned to it by this charter or other
law.


HISTORICAL NOTES:


   Section renumbered and amended L.L. 59/1996 § 1, eff. Aug. 8, 1996, formerly
§ 812.

   Section amended L.L. 8/1963.

   Section amended at General Election, November 4, 1975.

   Section amended at General Election, November 7, 1989.

   Subds. a, c amended at General Election November 8, 1988.

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Commissioner distinguishes between positions in the Unclassified Service and the Classified Service in determining an employee’s tenure status

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

County of Nassau v. Gazzola

Defendant, Roberta Gazzola’s, son, Christopher, was arrested and charged with Driving While Impaired. He was driving his mother’s car without her permission at the time. According to Nassau County Administrative Code § 8-7.0(g)(4)(a), Christopher was given a “Vehicle Seizure Notice” at the time of his arrest. The County commenced this action seeking civil forfeiture of the vehicle against the Gazzolas and Daimler-Chrysler, the company Roberta purchased the vehicle from. Daimler-Chrysler then filed a cross-claim seeking to repossess the vehicle based on an “innocent lienholder” defense. The Gazzolas then cross-moved for dismissal, claiming to be an “innocent owner”.

 

The County, though able to establish that the car was used in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, failed to establish that Ms. Gazzola gave Christopher permission to use her car, that she had any reason to believe that he would do so or that he would do so in an illegal fashion. The County recognizes that Daimler-Chrysler had a superior right to the vehicle but not over defendant since the circumstances that would have given Daimler-Chrysler the right the repossess the vehicle from Ms. Gazzola were not demonstrated here.

 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the complaint and all cross-claims. Roberta Gazzola’s motion was granted and it was declared that neither the County nor Daimler-Chrysler had rights superior to her on her vehicle.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

Adam R. Duchinsky v. Nicholas Scoppetta, Fire Commissioner of the City of New York, and The City of New York

This Article 78 case was brought about by Petitioner, Adam Duchinsky to challenge his termination and seek reinstatement as a probationary firefighter with the Fire Department of the City of New York. Petitioner was hired as a “provisional” EMS-EMT for the FDNY in 2006. Prior to being hired he disclosed that in 2000 he sustained an injury to his left knee and undergone arthroscopic surgery to repair the damage. In March 2007, Petitioner resigned from this position and became employed as a “probationary” firefighter. Again, Petitioner disclosed his previous injury and subsequent surgery.

Petitioner sustained an injury to his right knee during training in April of 2007, returned to work after a short medical leave but then was placed on light duty due to pain until mid-July. In August of 2007, Petitioner injured his left knee in another training exercise. This injury led to Petitioner’s termination as a probationary firefighter less than a month later. Petitioner then submitted this Article 78 to review the termination under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard.

Prior to his termination date, on August 23, 2007, Petitioner’s doctor, Dr. Levy, wrote a note that stated there was no reason that Petitioner couldn’t perform his duties once his knee sprain healed, that his previous injury was in no way related to the more recent one, and that he should be able to “complete a full career if at least twenty years as a New York City firefighter”. This doctor’s note is significant because it included an MRI that showed “no problems” and the Bureau of Health Services doctor, Dr. Kelly, never mentioned this information in his determination that Petitioner was “medically unqualified to perform the duties of a probationary firefighter”. Since Dr. Kelly relied heavily on the operative report for Petitioner’s 2000 surgery performed by Dr. Levy, logically he should place equal value on the August 23 Doctor’s Note.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered Respondents to deliver to the court affidavits and other evidence to prove when the August 23 Doctor’s Note was received and whether and by whom it was considered prior to Petitioner’s termination.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

J.H. v. County of Nassau

Plaintiff, J.H., brought about this action against the defendants, Jericho High School, Jericho Union Free School District, et al., claiming that their communications to Child Protective Services (CPS) were motivated by malice and revenge and were not in good faith. According to Plaintiff, he was about to file a complaint with the school Superintendent when the school reported him to CPS. Plaintiff’s son, M.H., was learning disabled and having an exceptionally hard time in his foreign language class and his father was trying to get a language exemption for M.H.

The school psychologist, Danielle Largotta, testified that on November 7, 2003, M.H. came to her office visibly upset and said that he had an argument with his father and did not want to go home because he feared a physical altercation. He was planning on running away to Florida. Also, Ms. Largotta stated that M.H. told her that two years prior, his father threw a baseball at his head, missed his head, and the baseball went through the wall.

The plaintiffs, in opposition, did not have any proof that the school was acting with malice or revenge when they contacted CPS. No physical evidence or facts exist to prove their claims and mere conclusions and speculation is not sufficient for a jury to infer malice.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted defendants motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ action.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Challenging an administrative determination by a civil service commission

Challenging an administrative determination by a civil service commission
Horn v The New York City Civil Service Commission, 43 A.D.3d 760, Appellate Division, First Department

Sharhann Lane, had been terminated from her position with the New York City Department of Corrections. She appealed to the New York City Civil Service Commission, which directed the Department to reinstate her to her former position.

Martin Horn, the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction, filed an Article 78 petition seeking to annul the Commission’s determination reinstating Lane to her former position as a correction officer.

Citing Matter of New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection v New York City Civil Service Commission, 78 NY2d 318, the Appellate Division ruled that the lower court properly dismissed the Commissioner’s petition as a determination by the New York City Civil Service Commission is subject to judicial review only if “the agency has acted illegally, unconstitutionally, or in excess of its jurisdiction”.

The Commissioner of Corrections had argued that the Civil Service Commission’s determination was against public policy and inconsistent with the Commission’s precedents in such matters. Challenges based on an alleged violation of public policy and, or, a failure to follow precedents, said the court, do not fall within the scope of judicial review permitted – i.e., consideration of alleged illegal or unconstitutional actions by the Commission or rulings alleged to be on matters beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction.

Source: Initially published on the Internet inNew York Public Personnel Law. Reproduced with permission. Copyright© 2006, 2007, 2008, Public Employment Law Press.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Thomas Kempkes v Brian Downey

Petitioner, a police officer, brought about this Article 78 appeal to review a determination by the Chief of Police of the Village of Bronxville suspending petitioner without pay pending a disciplinary hearing. Petitioner argued that the Village was obligated to pay his disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c since benefits conferred under this law constitute a vested property interest.

The issue in this case was whether General Municipal Law § 207-c creates a protected property interest in disability benefits such that a predeprivation hearing must be held. Since the constitutional guarantee of due process requires that a benefit recipient under General Municipal Law § 207-c be granted an evidentiary hearing prior to suspension of said benefits, a municipality may not discontinue the benefit payment without a prior evidentiary hearing.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court annulled the petitioner’s suspension and ordered appellants to restore the disputed benefits to petitioner until an evidentiary hearing is held and a final determination of the disciplinary charges made.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

McClellan v Majestic Tenants Corporation

Plaintiff began working for Majestic Tenants Corporation as a doorman in 1984 and later became a porter. In 2005, plaintiff was terminated. Plaintiff alleged unjust termination sought reinstatement to his prior position with full back pay, benefits, seniority, and contributions to the benefit funds lost through his union. The arbitrator decided that there was just cause for plaintiff’s termination which led to plaintiff filing an instant action alleging discrimination and harassment based on his race and age.

Defendants assert that plaintiff’s cause of action must be dismissed because collective bargaining agreements between Local 32B-32J and The Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations Incorporated (RAB) exclusively require that discrimination claims be resolved by arbitration. The Court felt that under current binding precedent, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed because his discrimination claims are subject to the mandatory arbitration provisions outlined in the collective bargaining agreement.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted motion by defendants for an order dismissing plaintiff’s action.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A deal between the teachers union and education officials was made to reduce the amount of time that teachers accused of misconduct will spend idling in “Rubber Rooms”. A recent analysis found that taxpayers spend about $65 million a year paying the salaries of teachers accused of misconduct. In order to expedite the processing of cases against teachers, the Education Department is increasing the number of arbitrators from 20 to 28, with 14 devoted strictly to cases of alleged incompetence. The goal of this new deal is to improve fairness and timeliness.

Read full article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Monreal v Administrative Review Board of the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct

Petitioner, F. Javier Monreal, brought about this Article 78 to review determination of respondent which revoked petitioner’s license to practice law in New York. Last year, petitioner who is a pediatric neurologist was personally served with a notice of hearing and statement of charges alleging multiple instances of misconduct involving his treatment of 12 children. When contacted by the Administrative Law Judge (ADJ), petitioner said he would not attend the hearing. All subsequent letters regarding the upcoming hearing petitioner returned unopened. Due to petitioner’s failure to respond, the charges were deemed admitted and his license to practice medicine in New York was revoked.

Petitioner argued that he suffered from a mental health affinity and thus the Committee’s decision should be vacated and a hearing conducted. No evidence exists to support a claim that petitioner did not understand the charges against him. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Instead of answering the charges, petitioner wrote a letter to the Department of Health and State Board for Professional Medical Conduct saying that he was commencing a separate action to prevent the hearing from taking place. These circumstances make it apparent that petitioner understood the charges against him and was able to assert his legal rights.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court confirmed the determination, without costs and dismissed the petition.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, Nassau officials made known their plans to appeal a $950,000 award in a federal lawsuit by a correction officer who convinced a jury that she was denied the opportunity to become a police officer due to gender discrimination and harassment.

County Attorney Lorna Goodman said Luca was not retaliated against but that “She simply was unable to satisfactorily explain her expensive homes and cars on a correction officer’s salary.” Thus, she didn’t pass the investigation.

Read the full article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Patricia Luca v Nassau County

Patricia Luca’s conflicts with Nassau County began in November 2000 when she was subject to sexual harassment at the county jail in East Meadow where she is employed. According to Luca, a fictitious scenario using her name was distributed while she was attending a workshop with colleagues. This scenario humiliated her and made her the butt of lewd comments. Luca filed a lawsuit regarding this incident and received an out-of-court settlement.

Luca claims that her challenging the county resulted in her being prevented from achieving her dream job of becoming a Nassau County police officer. She took the police officer exam in 1994 and was eligible to be hired but her name was passed over until she reached the max age and was no longer eligible. Luca sued Nassau County for a second time charging retaliation by the county.

After seven years in court, Patricia Luca was awarded a total of $949,973.86 in damages and lost pay, legal fees, and other costs.

Read the full article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Reinhard v City of New York

Petitioner, Christopher Reinhard, brought about petition to appeal the decision terminating him from the FDNY for illegal drug use. Petitioner argued that he was denied due process because the disciplinary hearing was conducted in his absence. The Court made multiple attempts to contact petitioner at his home address, through his attorney, and through his union. Petitioner did not inform the Court that he had entered an inpatient treatment facility. He was fully aware that disciplinary action would follow his positive test result and should have given notice of a change of address. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, without costs.

Kirk v City of New York

Petitioner, Michael Kirk, tested positive for cocaine during a random drug test and the Fire Department terminated his employment. Petitioner argued that the random drug testing policy is unconstitutional. Although alcohol dependency qualifies as a disability under Human Rights Law, drug abuse does not and petitioner failed to prove his drug use to be casually related to his alcoholism. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, without costs.

O’Neill v City of New York

Petitioner, Kevin O’Neill, was terminated for testing positive for marijuana during a random drug test under a zero tolerance policy in effect at the time of the decision. Petitioner argued that changes were made to the Fire Department’s policy regarding drug usage subsequent to his termination. The Court rejects petitioner’s claim that the changes should be retroactively applied to his case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, without costs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Smith v. New York City Department of Correction

Defendant, Kenneth Smith, made an appeal to annul his termination from the New York City Department of Corrections. Smith argued that he was terminated without notice or a hearing. The Court stands by the fact that he was a probationary employee at the time of his termination and it is a well known fact that a provisional or probationary employee may be discharged for any or no reason as long as the dismissal was not in bad faith.

The one factor that the Court considered was the fact that Smith’s probationary period had been extended by the number of days he was absent from duty. This extension was the reason Smith was still in probationary status at the time of his termination. Smith argued that he should have been given notice that his probationary period had been extended. The Court ruled that Smith was not entitled to notice because he signed a form acknowledging this and other conditions of his probation.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Timmerman v Board of Education of City School District of City of New York

In February 2007, Supreme Court ruled against Petitioner, Dolph Timmerman, in his Article 78 petition seeking to direct respondents to reimburse petitioner for the expenses he incurred defending himself against criminal charges leveled against him by two of his students.

Respondents contend that petitioner’s criminal proceeding does not fall within the scope of Education Law 3028. Since the record shows that the criminal proceeding against petitioner clearly arose directly from the disciplinary actions he took against pupils, respondents should reimburse petitioner for the attorneys fees and expenses he accrued defending himself.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered that the judgment is reversed, without costs, and the petition granted.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Muto v NYS Executive Department Division of Human Rights

Petitioner, Joseph F. Muto, sought to annul decision to terminate his probationary appointment on the grounds of bad faith and arbitrary and capricious action.

 Petitioner was hired by respondent, New York Division of Human Rights, for a probationary period of one year. On his application, Muto wrote that though he had worked as a practicing attorney in New York, he was not admitted to the New York bar. Petitioner said that the reason for this was because he was disbarred for negligent client representation by failing to appear for out-of-state cases due to his fear of flying and heights.

 During his probationary period, the senior staff held a meeting to review plaintiff’s personnel file and determined that he failed to fully disclose the reasons for his disbarment. A total of 43 serious charges were brought against petitioner and he was terminated.

 Muto then brought about this Article 78 proceeding on the ground that his termination was done in bad faith and was arbitrary and capricious. Petitioner’s arguments fail to show that respondent’s determination was in bad faith. Petitioner argued that respondent could have discovered all the details of his disbarment as a matter of public record but this does not mitigate the fact that Muto disclosed certain aspects of his disbarment while hiding others.

 Petitioner did not meet his burden to show a triable issue of fact to support a claim of bad faith, improper motive, arbitrariness or capriciousness.

 Accordingly, the Supreme Court grants the Respondent’s Cross Motion to dismiss this Petition.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of DeStefano v Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Nassau County

Index No. 11638/06

Petitioner brought about this Article 78 proceeding to review a determination by the Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Nassau County (BOCES) demoting her from her position as a Teacher’s Aide to that of a School Monitor awarding her back pay of $25,927.05. January 2004, BOCES found petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated her employment as punishment. In February 2006, the Court found that the sanction of dismissal was so disproportionate to petitioner’s misconduct as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness and demanded a less severe punishment. March 2006, BOCES demoted petitioner to the position of School Monitor and awarded her back pay based on a School Monitor’s salary, which was less than a Teacher’s Aide salary.

 Petitioner commenced an instant proceeding to review BOCES’ determination. The Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding. No basis exists for annulling the determination of BOCES to base the back pay on a School Monitor’s salary.

 Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Loscuito v Scoppetta

Article 78 proceeding was sought to review a determination of Nicholas Scoppetta, as Fire Commissioner of the City of New York. Petitioner knowingly made false statements to investigators in the course of an investigation. Additionally, petitioner was found guilty of six charges of misconduct. The petitioner’s false statements made under oath related to serious charges implicating the integrity of the FDNY gave good reason for his termination and was not so disproportionate to the offenses to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.

 Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matter of Criscolo v Vagianelis

The Supreme Court of New York County granted petitioners’ appeal to review a determination of respondent Department of Civil Service reclassifying certain civil service job titles.

 Petitioners challenged the classification standards issued in October 2006 by respondents revising their job titles within the Department of Corrections. This reclassification would add a duty to conduct tier III inmate disciplinary hearings to the following job titles: education supervisor, plant superintendent, and assistant industrial superintendent. Petitioners contended that this reclassification was inappropriate and conflicted with the duties of their civil service titles. Supreme Court rejected these contentions and dismissed the petition resulting in this appeal by petitioners.

 The Division argued that the job titles were in need of updating and that the standardized nature of the tier III hearings combined with procedural safeguards that are in place would allow for hearings to be conducted by non-attorneys. The proposed new standards set forth many changes and among them were requiring the employees to occasionally conduct tier III hearings.

 The Division may not utilize reclassification as a means of validating out-of-title work and this appears to be the case. The Governor’s Office of Employee Relations issued determinations in August 2006 ruling that the duties of conducting tier III disciplinary hearings constituted out-of-title work. The Division was attempting to indirectly do what it is prohibited from doing directly.

 Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Gilliam v. New York City Department of Sanitation

Index No. 1664/08

Charles Gilliam, Petitioner, moves, by order to show cause, to withdraw his resignation from the New York City Department of Sanitation, Respondents.

 Mr. Gilliam while a uniformed sanitation worker, tested positive for cocaine in June 2007. Accordingly, he was suspended and sent to a rehabilitation center. Prior to returning to work, Mr. Gilliam submitted to a second drug test in August 2007 and again failed. After his two failed drug tests and his attempt at rehabilitation, DSNY gave Mr. Gilliam a third chance in the form of a Last Chance Agreement. The Last Chance Agreement was an offer for Petitioner to accept a plea bargain to resolve all departmental charges against him. By signing this agreement, Petitioner waived any hearing or right to be heard for the purpose of contesting a subsequent positive drug test or refusal to test and have the Department Advocate the right to submit his resignation in the case of a third positive drug test. Mr. Gilliam voluntarily entered into the Last Chance Agreement and was aware that a third positive drug test would result in the termination of his employment.

 In November 2007, Petitioner failed a drug test for the third time. The urine sample, Mr. Gilliam submitted was substituted and found to be not urine. As a result of these laboratory findings, as required by the Last Chance Agreement, Petitioner’s resignation was submitted.

Mr. Gilliam does not dispute the test results but claims that the City and DSNY should have treated him for a line of duty injury due to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder caused by his experiences working during the 9/11. Mr. Gilliam, however, has failed to present the Court with any documentation that he worked at Ground Zero or the Staten Island landfill where Ground Zero debris was transported. While, the Court is sympathetic to Petitioner’s plea for help, they feel he has been given ample opportunity by respondents to solve his drug and alcohol problems.

 Petitioner Gilliam failed to present any evidence that he was coerced to sign the Last Chance Agreement. He voluntarily entered into his Last Chance Agreement in order to dispose of various departmental disciplinary charges resulting from his positive drug tests and substance abuse.

 Accordingly, the Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s order to show cause and granted respondents’ summary judgment and dismissal of the instant petition.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Alexander v. NYS Office of Children and Family Services
Index # 20906/06

The Appellate Division, Second Department determining this Article 78 Petition held that there was substantial evidence in the hearing record to uphold the determining of the designee of the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to revoke the Petitioner's licencse.  The penalty of license revocation was neither arbitrary and capricious nor disproportionate to the misconduct.  The decision can be found here www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_03451.htm

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Article 78 Motion to Annul Disqualification Denied

Rivers v. New York City Department of Sanitation

Index No. 104210/07

The Supreme Court of New York County granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss petitioner’s Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul respondents’ determination disqualifying petitioner from consideration for the position of sanitation worker affirmed.

 The court did not convert the cross motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action into a motion for summary judgment without notice. Instead, the court found that petitioner was unable to show cause of action that respondents acted arbitrarily, capricious, or without a rational basis. The determination finding petitioner medically not qualified for the position of sanitation worker was rationally based on findings that she suffered from left ventricular hypertrophy and had elevated blood pressure. Respondents relied on conclusions of Department of Sanitation’s medical director, not the conflicting opinions from petitioner’s physicians.

 Accordingly, the Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s appeal and granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent article in the New York Law Journal reported that the NYPD Department Advocate’s Office is now “civilianized”. The Department Advocate’s Office, which prosecutes officers in courtroom hearing before administrative law judges, is now composed of veteran litigators recruited primarily from the offices of district attorneys and the Legal Aid Society.

 Traditionally, the advocate’s office has been staffed by police officers straight out of law school. In 2005, Commissioner Raymond Kelley hired Julie Schwartz, former chief of the Sex Crimes and Special Victims Bureau at the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office, to alter the public perception of the advocate’s office. Ms. Schwartz’ aim was to “professionalize” the advocate’s office as a legal agency.

 This effort to bring credibility to the department has given way to a plethora of benefits to the parties involved. Officer-lawyers pursuing criminal charges against fellow police officers were commonly referred to as “rats” and most officers did not desire the position of a rat. Now, with the shift to civilian attorneys, more police officers are back out on patrol. A handful of the 25 lawyers under Ms. Schwartz command are uniformed police officers but these individuals do not have caseloads nor do they try cases.

 Positive statistics show prove an “improvement of the quality of service” provided by the civilian lawyers. In the past three years, since Ms. Schwartz’ reform, trials have gone down and negotiations have gone up. This means that the NYPD advocate’s office is being more careful about what they bring to trial. Also, fewer dismissals mean more credibility with the public and fewer cases brought to trial mean less unnecessary anxiety for police officers.

 Read entire article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Schmidt v Putnam County Office of the Sheriff

Index No. 1432/06

Petitioner Jeffrey Schmidt brought this Article 78 proceeding to review the Putnam County Sheriff’s denial of disability benefits. The Supreme Court granted the petition and awarded the petitioner disability benefits.

Petitioner suffered an on-the-job fall on January 31, 2003 causing medial meniscal tears requiring subsequent surgical repair. In order to be eligible for disability benefits, a covered municipal employee must prove direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting injury. Though the petitioner had a preexisting knee injury, the medical records unequivocally established that the injuries sustained were a result of his on-the-job fall and that these line-of-duty injuries were a direct cause of his disability.

 Accordingly, the Putnam County Sheriff’s denial was not rationally based on evidence presented and thus, the Court dismissed the denial as arbitrary and capricious.

Click www.putnamsheriff.com/ for the Putnam County Sheriff's Office Website

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Cotter v. Board of Ed. of the Garden City U.F.S.D., 19661/07
Decided: March 5, 2008

The petitioner initiated this proceeding for a judgment declaring that the respondent has failed to perform a duty upon it by law and engaged in conduct that is in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, and is arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion by refusing to save harmless and defend and indemnify the petitioner in a civil action pending in Supreme Court, County of Nassau. The petitioner also sought a judgment that the school district violated a settlement agreement that it would defend and indemnify the petitioner if he were to be sued.

Cotter and McCarthy were in the Garden City High School library grading papers.  When McCarthy wanted to leave the table Cotter protested and the two began a scuffle. McCarthy filed suit versus Cotter and the school district.

Cotter had signed an agreement with the school district that he "may" obtain defense and indemnification from the school district "to the extent permitted by law." McCarthy alleged injuries to his neck.
The Court held that the District's decision not to defend nor indemnify Cotter was not arbitrary or capricious. (CPLR 7803.) The Court dismissed the Petition..
The Garden City School District website can be found here www.gardencity.k12.ny.us/

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Pinder v. City of New York                    Index #113435

Plaintiff sued under 42 USC 1983 for damages of violations of Due Process and Employment Discrimination under Executive Law sect 296.  The First Department dismissed the complaint and held that Plaintiff was a non-tenured paraprofessional without property rights in her position.

Plaintiff had not proven that there was a “stigma-plus” due process claim as there was no proof that the reasons for her discharge was published to prospective employers.  Finally, the Court wrote that due process was satisfied when the Plaintiff used the CBA’s grievance procedure and an filed an Article 78 petition.

The City’s website is www.nyc.gov

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Murray v. Downey Index No 11224/06

This was an Article 78 to review Bronxville’s Police Chief’s decision to dock a single day’s pay from Joseph Murray. The Respondent’s moved to dismiss for Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing an Article 78. 

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the dismissal.

Petitioner filed a grievance with respect to the decision that petitioner Joseph Murray was not allowed to use sick leave on May 30, 2005. The grievance found its way to the Police Chief; Village Administrator and Village Board of Trustees. Petitioners failed to then send the grievance to arbitration as required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Bronxville Police Department website is: villageofbronxville.com/subc2_police.htm

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The following was originally posted at Public Personnel Blog of Harvey Randall, Esq.

Disqualifying an applicant for appointment by a civil service commission
Matter of Murray v County of Nassau Civil Service Commission, 2007 NY Slip Op 50927(U), Supreme Court, Nassau County, James P. McCormack, J.

The Nassau Civil Service Commission disqualified Sandor Murray for employment as a Nassau County Police Officer. The Commission based its determination of Murray’s alleged failure to meet the “psychological requirement of the position.”

Murray, claiming that the Commission “acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner” when it disqualified him for appointment as a police office, filed an Article 78 petition seeking a court order directing his appointment as a Nassau County Police Officer.

Judge McCormack dismissed Murray’s petition, holding that the Commission’s decision was not irrational. Indeed, said the court, its determination is “supported by substantial evidence.” In addition, Judge McCormack found that the Commission had complied with New York Civil Service Law Section 50(4) when it considered whether Murray should be disqualified for appointment as a police officer. *

According to the decision, the standard for judicial review of an administrative determination pursuant to CPLR Article 78 is limited to an inquiry into whether the agency acted arbitrarily and, or, capriciously.

Noting that a civil service commission has wide discretion in determining the fitness of candidates, Judge McCormack, citing Verne v. Suffolk County Department of Civil Service, 5 AD2d 498 and Needleman v. County of Rockland, 270 AD2d 4, said that the exercise of such discretion “is particularly broad in the hiring of persons for position in law enforcement, to whom high standards must be applied.”

The decision points out that although Murray’s medical expert’s opinion differed from that of the Commission’s medical expert, “[i]t is not for the courts to choose between diverse professional opinions.”

Thus, said the court, “where there is any rational basis or credible evidence in support of an agency’s determination,” the administrative decision will be upheld (see Matter of Curcio v. Nassau County Civil Service Commission, 220 AD2d 412).

____________

* Section 54.4, in pertinent part, provides: No person shall be disqualified pursuant tothis subdivision unless he [or she] has been given a written statement of the reasonstherefor and afforded an opportunity to make an explanation and to submit facts in opposition to such disqualification.

Source: Initially published on the Internet in New York Public Personnel Law. Reproduced with permission. Copyright© 2006, 2007, 2008, Public Employment Law Press.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Chan v. Kelly, the New York Police Department, and the City of New York
Index No. 110513/07

Petitioner William Chan sought reinstatement as a police cadet by respondents Raymond Kelly, the New York City Police Department, and the City of New York in this Article 78 petition. 

Patrol Guide §212-34 governs probationary police officers, and states in part that when a probationary police officer or person eligible for appointment to the NYPD is involved in a police incident, a member of the service must report the incident to a commanding officer. The Police Cadet Corps Handbook also states, at § 105-4, that “[a] police incident not only involves arrests but includes all police incidents”. 

While Chan denies he violated written procedure, he does not deny that he left the scene of a serious multi-car accident, that he did not attempt to render assistance, and that he failed to notify a commanding officer. On the basis of these facts, respondents concluded that Chan violated Patrol Guide §212-34 and “failed to demonstrate the integrity, judgment, and character required of either a New York City Police Officer or a Police Cadet”. 

The court wrote that:

“Chan’s petition does not meet this burden [of bad faith]… On the contrary, evidence in record supports the conclusion Chan was discharged by respondents in good faith on the basis of his unsatisfactory performance.” 

Accordingly, the Court denied this Article 78 petition.

 Read entire article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Overview of medical and psychological disqualifications

 The NYS Civil Service Law along with the NYC Charter authorizes the DCAS Commissioner to disqualify a potential candidate to a competitive position for failure to meet medical and psychological standards. If this occurs, the candidate has the right to appeal the disqualification to the New York City Civil Service Commission.

 Section 814(a)(6) of the New York City Charter provides that the DCAS Commissioner investigates and reviews the qualifications of applicants for positions in civil service.

 Section 813(d) of the Charter provides that the CCSC has the power to hear and determine appeals.

Section 815(a)(5) provides that agency heads assist DCAS in reviewing and evaluating a candidate’s qualifications, a Section 815(a)(18) permits the delegation by the DCAS Commissioner of certain personnel management functions to agency heads.

 It is the Hiring Agency’s responsibility to ensure that these processes are followed with regard to candidates for positions in its agency.

 The CCSC will forward appeals and documentation, if submitted, in support of an appeal of medical and psychological disqualifications to the office within each Hiring Agency for such purpose. The Hiring Agency will first ascertain that the appeal to the CCSC was filed by the candidate within thirty days of the date of the action. If the candidate did not file the appeal with the CCSC in a timely fashion, the Hiring Agency will request that the appeal be dismissed on that basis.

 When filed in a timely fashion, the Hiring Agency will, prior to preparing any submission to the CCSC to support the disqualification, afford the disqualified candidate sixty days in which to submit medical documentation to support the appeal.

 If a candidate submits medical and/or psychological documentation to support the appeal from the disqualification, the CCSC will forward any new documentation to the office within each Hiring Agency identified for such purchase. The Hiring Agency will review and give due consideration to each new documentation commensurate with the weight of the new documentation. Review and consideration may include scrutiny of the documentation by a doctor of the Hiring Agency or an independent consultant, or a re-examination of the candidate.

 In cases where a Hiring Agency decides not to rescind a disqualification, they are responsible for submitting to the CCSC a cover report explaining the decision to disqualify a candidate. The cover report must contain a reference to the specific medical or psychological standard not met by the candidate, an explanation of how the candidate did not meet this standard, how failure to meet standard prevents the candidate from performing an essential function of the position, and reference to any documentation supplied by the candidate with an explanation as to why said documentation does not serve as a basis to rescind the disqualification. Along with the cover report should be copies of all medical or psychological records that support the disqualification clearly labeled as records in support of the disqualification and copies of all medical or psychological records submitted by the candidate in support of their contention that he or she is qualified for the position clearly identified as records in support of the candidate’s appeal.

 If an evidentiary hearing is determined necessary, the CCSC must forward the notice to the Hiring Agency and the Office Manager of the Office of the General Counsel of DCAS.

 The Hiring Agency is responsible for maintaining statistics required by DCAS to ensure that the mandatory processes are being followed. Each Hiring Agency must maintain the statistics of the number of appeals forwarded to the Hiring Agency by the CCSC, the date on which the appeals were submitted to the CCSC, and the date on which cover reports were submitted to the CCSC.

 Read entire article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York State Civil Service Commission

The CSC exercise authority over the classified civil service of the State.

The CSC retains broad merit system oversight responsibilities for both State and local government.

The functions of the Commission can be divided into three categories:

Quasi-Legislative Authority :The Commission promulgates rules and regulations for the classified service (this includes the Rules for the Classified Service and the Commission's Regulations).

Appellate Authority :The CSC can hear appeals in disciplinary cases for employees not covered by contract; appeals regarding involuntary leaves of absence; appeals from examination ratings; and appeals from actions of the President of the Commission,

Investigative Authority : The CSC can investigate any matter concerning the enforcement and effect of the Civil Service Law or Rules.

The CSC is comprised of three members appointed by the Governor, on the advice and consent of the State Senate. By law, no more than two Commissioners can be members of the same political party. The Governor designates one of the three Commissioners as the President of the Commission.

The CSC conducts its business during its annual schedule of eleven monthly meetings. 

The Commission Meeting Calendar lists the issues before the CSC at each monthly meeting.

1. Executive Items :

Jurisdictional: By law, classified service positions are in the competitive jurisdictional class, unless the CSC acts to approve placement outside of the competitive class. CSC resolutions are signed by the President of the Commission and take effect upon signature by the Governor and filing with the Secretary of State.

Text Amendments:The CSC can amend the text of the Rules for the Classified Service, Attendance   Rules and the Regulations of the State CSC (Commission's Regulations).

2. Staffing Services : The Civil Service Law allows for discretionary unpaid leaves of absence for permanent employees who depart State service or accept State positions outside of the competitive class. CSC approval

      is required to extend these leaves beyond the original two-year period.

3. Reinstatements : Within one year of resignation, an agency may restore a former permanent employee to his or her previous job, without examination, if the position is unfilled when reinstatement is sought. Beyond one year from the resignation date, reinstatement requires Commission approval.

4.      The Testing Program:

      Committee on Appeals: The Establishment of Rating Keys for Written Tests.

      Two members of the CSC act as Chairpersons of the Committee(s) on Appeals.The Committee on Appeals decides whether the exam rating keys should be adjusted, based upon candidates' objections and the Testing Division's analyses. CSC approve final rating keys, eligible lists can be established.

      The CSC examines proposed changes to the text of municipal civil service rules and proposed changes to the rules.

      RSSL § 211 authorizes the State CSC to waive the § 212 income limitations. A § 211 waiver enables a retiree to accept a full-time government job without compromising the pension benefit earned from prior service

5 . Extensions in Service Over Age Seventy (Superannuation Retirement): Employees who remain subject to RSSL § 70 must obtain CSC approval to continue in office.

6.   Appeals: Aggrieved individuals can appeal departmental actions to the CSC, Appeals from Determinations of the Staffing Services Division , Candidate Disqualification, Appeals from Determinations of the Testing Services Division, Appeals from Determinations of the Director of the Division of Classification and Compensation, Appeals from Determinations of the Employee Health Service Regarding Eligibility under the CSL § 55 (b)(c) Programs & Appeals Regarding Disability Leaves and Reinstatement Issues, a) Reinstatement after Separation for Disability under Workers' Compensation (CSL § 71 b) Leave for Ordinary Disability (CSL § 72 c) Separation for Ordinary Disability; Reinstatement (CSL § 73) d) Employee Disciplinary Proceedings (CSL § 75 and § 76)

7          Merit Awards: State worker or retiree is eligible to submit ideas through the Employee Suggestion Program.

            Suggestions recommended for an award, is approved by CSC. Awards can range from a Certificate of Merit     to payments totaling $50,000

      8    Conferences : Parties with business before the CSC can request a Conference with the Commission.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

NYC Human Resources Administration v. Barnes

 This Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) case was decided by ALJ Alessandra Zorgniotti on November 15, 2007.   Human Resources Administration (HRA) filed charges under Section 75 of the Civil Service Law against the respondent Barnes. Ms. Barnes had been involuntarily committed by her son and did not appear at the hearing. 

The issue was whether the misconduct which resulted in charges being filed by HRA against Ms. Barnes was the result of a mental disability.  Trial testimony revealed that after the death of her child’s father and her mother Ms. Barnes behavior took a radical turn for the worse.  Respondent had been previously described as “warm; soft spoken and respectful.” 

The Court held that the evidence proved that the misconduct was the result of a mental disability and that HRA should have filed an action under Section 72 of the Civil Service Law rather than Section 75. Finally, the ALJ held that OATH could not convert a disciplinary hearing to a disability hearing  in the respondent’s absence but left HRA the option to proceed under Section 72 for a disability leave. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

                                                                                                                                               

Matter of Curtis Marshall v. Martin Horn

Index No.: 100879/07   SUPREME COURT, NEW YORK COUNTY

 In this Article 78 proceeding, Petitioner sought a judgment annulling the determination of Mr. Martin Horn, which terminated his employment as a correction officer. Respondent sought to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action.  

Petitioner was a probationary correction officer with DOC. He stopped at a local bodega and bought a straight edge razor in order to make an opening inside the stitched area of the upper left side of his new regulation shirt so that he could affix his shield to the shirt. After using the razor, Mr. Marshall placed it in a small plastic container which he put in his gym bag. He then reported to work to begin his 7:OO a.m. to 3:OO p.m. tour of duty.

Upon entering his work site, Petitioner placed his gym bag on the x-ray scanner and proceeded to walk through security.  The correction officer manning the security post, noticed the razor in Petitioner’s gym bag and instructed him to put it in the amnesty box outside. The officer on dutyinformed Petitioner that she would have to report the incident.

 After being transferred to a different assignment the Petitioner was terminated from his position.

Petitioner then commenced this Article 78 proceeding by the filing a notice of petition and

verified petition on January 19,2007, challenging DOC’S determination that he be discharged on the

grounds that DOC’S actions were arbitrary, capricious and made in bad faith.

Petitioner asserts in his petition that DOC’S decision to terminate him for mistakenly placing the razor in the gun box instead of the amnesty box lacked a rational basis because his

 “unfamiliarity with the amnesty box does not violate any rule or regulation and the only directive pertaining to amnesty boxes makes clear that it exists for individuals visitingthe correction facilities.”

The Court wrote that :

“Inasmuch as the petition fails to “allege evidentiary facts suggesting that the dismissal was motivated by an improper purpose or bad faith,” the petition must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

The cross motion to dismiss the petition was granted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

  Smith v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York,

118947/06

 Ms Eileen Smith, a Social Studies teacher at Far Rockaway High School given unsatisfactory
rating on  June 24, 2004, for the 2003-2004 school year due to an incident occurred on October 21, 2003, the first day of the implementation of a new policy at school. Smith filed an Article 78 proceeding.

One minute after the late bell had rung signaling that classes had changed, teachers were required to lock their classroom doors. In Ms. Smith’s class, the ones locked out banged on her door to compel the teacher to let them in. Ms. Smith then attempted to leave the room to get help, but two students in the classroom held the door closed.

Ms. Smith acknowledged having used inappropriate language during the chaotic time. Ms. Smith allegedly had said: "This 'fucking' language has to stop. I do not want abusive or profane talk in the class." Ms. Smith had also reportedly said: "I will not continue until the stupids stop," and then presumably in an effort to clarify added: "I mean the stupid remarks. I am not calling anyone stupid."

Ms Smith was found to have "committed acts which are prohibited by the Chancellor's Regulation A-420 Corporal Punishment and Chancellor's Regulation A-420 Verbal Abuse which constitutes unacceptable teacher deportment." The letter concluded that the finding "may lead to disciplinary action, including an Unsatisfactory rating and termination."

Ms. Smith filed a grievance. An arbitrator ruled that the letter should be deleted from Eileen Smith's file because it is unfair and inaccurate as these terms have been defined by the parties. Also Ms. Smith had received an "Unsatisfactory" rating and immediately appealed it. That hearing was held on May 31, 2006 before the Chancellor's designated Chairperson. 

It was recommended that the appeal be denied and rating of "Unsatisfactory" be sustained.  This Article 78 followed. The Court held that:

The Commissioner and the courts have held that a U-Rating cannot be sustained where, as here, the Chairperson improperly relies on documents which should have been excluded from consideration at the teacher's appeal. The A-420 (report prepared regarding alleged foul language) are not based on any personal observation by any administrator; instead, they are based solely on the hearsay statements written by the students. Thus, the A-420, by itself, cannot support the U-Rating.

Without the various documents, the only evidence left is the undisputed fact that Ms. Smith made the above-quoted statements in the midst of an extremely difficult time in class. The Chairperson's reluctance is revealed by her finding that the evidence "leaves many questions," by her emphasis on Ms. Smith's repeated calls for help.

Thus, while it may well be that Ms. Smith could have achieved her goal by using different language, it cannot reasonably be said that the language she used qualifies as prohibited verbal abuse as defined in the Regulations sufficient to support an Unsatisfactory Rating.
 

The Court reversed the denial of the appeal and directed that the Department remove the unsatisfactory rating from the teacher’s file.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York State Civil Service Commission

The CSC exercise authority over the classified civil service of the State.

The CSC retains broad merit system oversight responsibilities for both State and local government.

The functions of the Commission can be divided into three categories:

Quasi-Legislative Authority :The Commission promulgates rules and regulations for the classified service (this includes the Rules for the Classified Service and the Commission's Regulations).

Appellate Authority :The CSC can hear appeals in disciplinary cases for employees not covered by contract; appeals regarding involuntary leaves of absence; appeals from examination ratings; and appeals from actions of the President of the Commission,

Investigative Authority : The CSC can investigate any matter concerning the enforcement and effect of the Civil Service Law or Rules.

The CSC is comprised of three members appointed by the Governor, on the advice and consent of the State Senate. By law, no more than two Commissioners can be members of the same political party. The Governor designates one of the three Commissioners as the President of the Commission.

The CSC conducts its business during its annual schedule of eleven monthly meetings. 

The Commission Meeting Calendar lists the issues before the CSC at each monthly meeting.

1. Executive Items :

Jurisdictional: By law, classified service positions are in the competitive jurisdictional class, unless the CSC acts to approve placement outside of the competitive class. CSC resolutions are signed by the President of the Commission and take effect upon signature by the Governor and filing with the Secretary of State.

Text Amendments:The CSC can amend the text of the Rules for the Classified Service, Attendance   Rules and the Regulations of the State CSC (Commission's Regulations).

2. Staffing Services : The Civil Service Law allows for discretionary unpaid leaves of absence for permanent employees who depart State service or accept State positions outside of the competitive class. CSC approval

      is required to extend these leaves beyond the original two-year period.

3. Reinstatements : Within one year of resignation, an agency may restore a former permanent employee to his or her previous job, without examination, if the position is unfilled when reinstatement is sought. Beyond one year from the resignation date, reinstatement requires Commission approval.

4.      The Testing Program:

      Committee on Appeals: The Establishment of Rating Keys for Written Tests.

      Two members of the CSC act as Chairpersons of the Committee(s) on Appeals.The Committee on Appeals decides whether the exam rating keys should be adjusted, based upon candidates' objections and the Testing Division's analyses. CSC approve final rating keys, eligible lists can be established.

      The CSC examines proposed changes to the text of municipal civil service rules and proposed changes to the rules.

      RSSL § 211 authorizes the State CSC to waive the § 212 income limitations. A § 211 waiver enables a retiree to accept a full-time government job without compromising the pension benefit earned from prior service

5 . Extensions in Service Over Age Seventy (Superannuation Retirement): Employees who remain subject to RSSL § 70 must obtain CSC approval to continue in office.

6.   Appeals: Aggrieved individuals can appeal departmental actions to the CSC, Appeals from Determinations of the Staffing Services Division , Candidate Disqualification, Appeals from Determinations of the Testing Services Division, Appeals from Determinations of the Director of the Division of Classification and Compensation, Appeals from Determinations of the Employee Health Service Regarding Eligibility under the CSL § 55 (b)(c) Programs & Appeals Regarding Disability Leaves and Reinstatement Issues, a) Reinstatement after Separation for Disability under Workers' Compensation (CSL § 71 b) Leave for Ordinary Disability (CSL § 72 c) Separation for Ordinary Disability; Reinstatement (CSL § 73) d) Employee Disciplinary Proceedings (CSL § 75 and § 76)

7          Merit Awards: State worker or retiree is eligible to submit ideas through the Employee Suggestion Program.

            Suggestions recommended for an award, is approved by CSC. Awards can range from a Certificate of Merit     to payments totaling $50,000

      8    Conferences : Parties with business before the CSC can request a Conference with the Commission.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

                          City of Long Beach v. Civil Service Employees Association

This Court of Appeals case centered on whether or not issues submitted by the Civil Service Employees Association were subject to arbitration.

This the history of the case includes a report issued by the New York State Civil Service Commission in the year 2004 noting that Long Beach had poor control over its provisional appointments in the civil service. Most importantly several positions in the competitive class have been filled with provisional appointments and one had been filled provisionally for a total of 19 years.

The city determined that the provisional appointments violated Civil Service Law and terminated the employees. The CSEA filed grievances and demanded arbitration alleging that the employees were tenured.

The city brought an action to stop the arbitration. The Supreme Court granted the motion to stay the arbitration and the Appellate Division affirmed. Their reasoning behind the decision is that a provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement to arbitrate these disputes violated Civil Service Law.

Citing Civil Service Law section 65 (1) the court found that provisional appointments are allowed when there is no eligible list available for filling a vacancy in a competitive class and then for only a maximum of nine months. Furthermore, once a provisional employee has been in a position four months the City must hold a Civil Service examination. Section 65 allows no tenure to provisional employees and the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the C. S. E.A. is meaningless in light of the Civil Service Law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link