ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

July 13, 2012

Courts have a limited authority in modifying a disciplinary penalty imposed by the appointing authority


Courts have a limited authority in modifying a disciplinary penalty imposed by the appointing authority
Mary Ellis v Mahon, 11 NY3d 754

In Ellis v Mahon, 49 AD2d 538, the Appellate Division the annulled the disciplinary penalty imposed on the employee – dismissal – and remanded the matter to the appointing authority “for the imposition of an appropriate penalty less severe than either termination or suspension of [the employee’s] employment.” The individual had been found guilty of incompetence.

The Appellate Division found that “The evidence did not establish, nor does the [appointing authority] suggest, that [the employee’s] conduct was motivated by any malice or selfishness, or that it resulted in any "grave injury to the agency involved or to the public weal."

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s determination, commenting that the worker, who was employed as an eligibility examiner tasked with processing food stamp applications, consistently processed such applications in particularly late fashion, even after multiple warnings concerning her poor performance. Thus, said the court, “we cannot conclude that the penalty of termination shocks the judicial conscience,” citing Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222.

The Court of Appeals then reiterated its view that “the Appellate Division has no discretionary authority or “interest of justice” jurisdiction in this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the penalty imposed by the appointing authority.”

The Court cited Torrance v Stout, 9 NY3d 1022, a case involving the willful and intentional illegal disposition of county property, and Rutkanas v Stout, 8 NY3d 897, a case involving conduct that was found to have jeopardized the health and safety of his coworkers and of the public patrons of the facility at which he worked, in support of its ruling.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

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