New York Civil Service Attorney Law Blog

New York Civil Service Attorney Law Blog

Civil Service Law Section 76

Posted in Civil Service, Civil Service Discipline

Section 76 of the New York State Civil Service Law permits aggrieved employees to appeal a determination after disciplinary proceeding to the NYC Civil Service Commission through an Article 78 proceeding. Civil Service Law section 76 states that the Commission’s decision “shall be final inconclusive, and shall not be subject to further review in any court.”

In the case of New York City Department of Environmental Crotection vs. the NYC Civil Service Commission decided on December 12, 1991 to the highest court in New York State, the Court of Appeals determined that unless the Commission has acted illegally, unconstitutionally or in excess of its jurisdiction an appeal of the discipline imposed by city agency (excluding NYPD) send to the NYC Civil Service Commission and in some way to altered by the Commission will not be reversed by the Courts.

EPA v. NYC Civil Service Commission 78 NY2d 318.

NYPD psych disqualified candidates MUST appeal upon receipt of Notice of Proposed Disqualification-NOPD

Posted in Civil Service, NYPD disqualification appeals attorney

NYPD Psych Disqualification

Disqualified NYPD Police Officer candidates who receive a letter called Notice of Proposed Disqualification (NOPD) based on psychological issues must file an appeal within 30 days! Failure to file an appeal and designated an expert to receive your file to prepared an rebuttal appeal report will result in having your case dismissed by the NYC Civil Service Commission if you file an appeal AFTER receiving a Notice of Disqualification (NOD) from the NYPD Psychological Services Section.

Privilege against self incrimination not violated at NYS CSL sect 75 hearing

Posted in Article 78, Civil Service Discipline, Uncategorized

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 with respect to the use of the statements in a criminal proceeding.

In Matt v. Larocca, 71 N.Y.2d 154, 524 N.Y.S.2d 180, 518 N.E.2d 1172 (N.Y., 1987) considering the same issue the court held:

We conclude therefore that insofar as petitioner was not requested to waive his right to immunity before answering questions specifically, directly and narrowly relating to his official duties, his dismissal did not violate fundamental fairness or his privilege against self-incrimination. Moreover, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s determination that petitioner willfully refused to answer the questions posed, and dismissal under the circumstances is not ” ‘ “so disproportionate to the offense * * * as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness”

The court went on to find that the penalty of dismissal did not shock one’s sense of fairness.

Read about this Article 78 Civil Service Law 75 appeal.

For information on NYPD background appeals visit

For NYPD disqualification psych appeals visit this link.



Plaintiff Failed to Comply with County Law 52 – Case Dismissed

Posted in Article 78, Civil Service, Civil Service Discipline

Plaintiff claimed improper termination from respondent County and alleged protection under civil service law section 75 – be the public sector whistleblower law.


Plaintiff failed to file a notice of claim as required by County law section 52 and defendants motion to dismiss this improper termination case was granted. New York State general municipal law section 50 – the and 50 – I applies to cities and not counties. County law section 52 applies to city cases and there is a broader requirement to file a notice of claim.


You can read about this New York State improper termination civil service law case by clicking here.


To read about NYPD character disqualifications please visit my website at

NYC provisionals get “Qualified Incumbents Exam”

Posted in Civil Service, Employment Law, NYPD disqualification appeals attorney

Governor Cuomo signed a bill to allow provisional City workers a one time opportunity to take a “Qualified Incumbents Exam” and become permanent in their title.  This exam would be given as long as there were no upcoming open competitive examination for that title.

This bill seeks to reduce the number of provisionals working in the City. This bill is an amendment of the 2008 law which also sought to reduce the number of New York City provisional workers.

Provisional appointments are aimed at filling jobs over the short term but it was revealed that some NYS cities had provisionals serving in their title for 19 years.

Read about this NYS Civil Service provisional exam law by clicking here. 4vpptrflrcs-dorothee-hubner (1)

If you have a NYPD psych disqualification click here for help.


Posted in Appeal u rating, Article 78, Civil Service Discipline, Teacher Issues


The question presented in this Article 78 appeal:

Would a teacher be able to apply time served on very different license to calculate whether they are beyond probationary status?

In this article 78 case of which sought to annul petitioners probationary termination petitioner claimed the service under a different license would win added to her current service push her past probation.  The court ruled that since the original license service was not ruled satisfactory could not be added two the current probationary period.

To read about this probationary teacher termination article 78 appeal click here.

CPLR Article 75 suit to overturn Education Law 3020-a decision denied.

Posted in 3020a, Teacher Issues

In this article 75 petition to vacate the determination of an arbitrator  which is made pursuant to New York State Education Law section 3020 – a

The arbitrators’ from that ensued in seven appropriate, with professional, or insubordinate conduct were proven.  Accordingly petitioner is civil service law section 75 –b defense that the charges were brought in retaliation was unavailing.

Finally the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate to the misconduct has to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (Pell v Mamaroneck)

Visit my website for futher information about similar cases.

Read more about this 3020-a teacher discipline case by clicking here.


Posted in Civil Service, Disqualification Success Stories, NYPD disqualification appeals attorney

NYPD Disqualification

If you are in the hiring process for a New York City Civil Service job and would like to find out when your eligible list expires:

Dial 212-669-1357
Press 2
Enter your social security number

The DCAS help line will tell you when your list was established and when it will expire. The expiration date is usually 4 years after the list was established or promulgated.

If you received an NYPD Disqualification letter you would probably need one (1) year to process your appeal and if you were to succeed in your disqualification appeal to appointed to the NYPD. Therefore, you should write to your investigator and request that action be taken on your file to allow you sufficient time to appeal if you are disqualified.

Reinstated Teacher must follow DOE Chancellor’s regulations to retain tenure

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

Petitioner was a teacher of catering who resigned to take a chef’s position. Petitioner returned to a different school and was given a “U” rating and terminated. Petitioner filed an Article 78 petition without filing a grievance claiming that his termination was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion and violated his right to have a hearing pursuant to Education Law 3020(a). The Court of Appeals upheld the denial of the Article 78 petition ruling that the Petition was required to submit a written request to withdraw his resignation and submit to a medical exam at the direction of the school chancellor.
Read about this Teacher civil service tenure and termination case here.