A police officer must first file an appeal with the NYC Civil Service Commission before filing an Article 78 under the doctrine of “exhaustion of remedies.”

A hiring agency may disqualify a candidate up to three years after hiring the candidate.  The three year limit does not apply if fraud was used in the application

As a civil service attorney with more than 18 years of experience, I have successfully helped many of my clients win their NYPD disqualification appeal. I can help you too.

RECENT CLIENT REVIEWS AFTER SECOND INTERVIEW:

March 23, 2021 – “I was found psychologically qualified after a second interview with the help of Kevin

What are some of the reasons a candidate can be psychologically (psych) disqualified for the NYPD police officer title or other civil service titles?

If a candidate had an IEP (Individual Education Plan) in school, some NYPD psychologists see this as a reason to disqualify a candidate. The NYPD psychologist will ask you to sign

Law Office of Kevin P. SheerinSometimes younger people (often men), accumulate summonses or moving violations for “loud exhaust” or “tinted windows”. These violations accumulate over time and may grow to 5, 10, 15 or even 20 summonses. As the years pass these young people look to get a job with the NYPD or another law enforcement agency. After the application

New York State Civil Service Law sect 76 allows permanent civil service employees to appeal disciplinary penalties.

The statute states in pertinent part: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO:

The New York City Civil Service Commission website explains the Commission’s role in the process:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/csc/html/appeals/s76disciplinary.shtml

After receiving discipline an employee may choose to file a lawsuit or Article 78

This was the recently issue in an Article 78 suit brought of remedy a security clearance revocation for old criminal convictions.   The Court addressed the issue of whether an alcohol counselor was seeking “membership” in a law enforcement agency.  The court answered this question in the negative and ordered reinstatement of the security clearance for

After charges were filed and a hearing held before a hearing officer Petitioner filed an Article 78 suit claiming his privilege against self incrimination had been violated.

The Appellate Division, Second Department wrote: “The privilege against self-incrimination was not a bar to the disciplinary charges because the petitioner was not required to waive his immunity

Petitioner was denied a pistol permit and filed suit. Carol S. Klein was an acting Suprme Court Judge in Orange County, New York.  The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed Judge Klein’s decision to uphold the pistol licensing officer’s decision to deny the applicant a permit.

Penal Law sect 400(1) sets forth the eligiblity requirements for