Where the statute provides alternate appeal procedures, the election of one such procedure serves to preclude seeking redress pursuant to the other
Matter of Uddin v NYC/Human Resources Admin., 2011 NY Slip Op 00695, Appellate Division, Second Department
§76 of the Civil Service Law provides that an aggrieved employee may appeal a §75 administrative disciplinary determination by either:
1. Filing an application to the state or municipal commission having jurisdiction within twenty days after service of the written notice of the disciplinary determination; or
2. By filing a petition in accordance with the provisions of Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules [CPLR].
New York City Human Resources Administration sustained the disciplinary determination and the recommended penalty issued by an administrative law judge that found Jamal Uddin guilty of misconduct.
Uddin then filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 with Supreme Court, Kings County. The court, however, granted Human Resources’ motion to dismiss the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.
The Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s decision, noting that Uddin sought judicial review of a §75 disciplinary determination after seeking a review pursuant to Civil Service Law §76 before the New York City Civil Service Commission [NYCCSC], said he was barred from commencing the underlying CPLR Article 78 proceeding.*
The court then commented that “To the extent that this proceeding may also be considered a challenge to the determination of the NYCCSC,” Uddin failed to demonstrate that the NYCCSC's determination falls within a recognized exception to the statutory prohibition on judicial review of such by virtue of its being unconstitutional, violative of state law, or in excess of the NYCCSC's authority.
Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that judicial review of the NYCCSC's determination was precluded.
* §76.3, in pertinent part, provides that “The decision of such civil service commission shall be final and conclusive, and not subject to further review in any court.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_00695.htm
Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State in particular and possibly in other jurisdictions in general.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS
CAUTION
Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard.
Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law.
Email: publications@nycap.rr.com