Withdrawing a letter of resignation
Lust v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01742, Appellate Division, Third Department
Francis Lust visited his employer's Human Resources office and told a personnel associate of his intention to retire. The personnel associate said that a letter of resignation was required and, upon Lust's request, prepared a letter of resignation on his behalf stating that "This letter serves as my intent to resign for purposes of retirement on March 30, 2015 close of business." Lust reviewed and signed the letter without making any changes. The Director of Human Resources and, by letter dated February 11, 2015, she informed petitioner that his resignation had been accepted.*
On February 16, 2015, Lust informed the Director that, "due to financial reasons, he would not be able to retire as intended and, therefore, his earlier letter of resignation was "no longer valid." Lust's letter seeking to withdraw his resignation was rejected and he was told that his last day of employment would be, and was, March 30, 2015.
Lust initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding asserting, among other things, that the denial of his request to rescind his letter of resignation was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion or affected by an error of law. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and Lust appealed.
The Appellate Division agreed with the Supreme Court decision, holding that Lust was required to obtain the consent of the appointing authority before he could withdraw his resignation. The court said that 4 NYCRR 5.3(c ) of the Rules for the Classified Service, provides that a resignation tendered by an employee of the State as the employer in the classified service "may not be withdrawn . . . after it is delivered to the appointing authority, without the consent of the appointing authority."**
In this instance the Appellate Division concluded that the appointing authority had lawfully delegated its power of appointment to the chief executive officer [CEO] of the facility, who, in turn, by letter lawfully authorized the Director of Personnel to be his designee on "all matters related to employee relations and concerns" with "full authority to make decisions regarding whether to accept a resignation and, likewise, whether to deny a request to rescind a resignation from any such employee of the facility.
Accordingly, said the court, Lust's delivery of his letter of resignation to the Director on constituted delivery to CEO and, thus, petitioner could not unilaterally withdraw his resignation.
Holding that the question of "Whether to permit the withdrawal of a delivered letter of resignation is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the appointing authority, and such a determination will be disturbed only if it constituted an abuse of discretion or was arbitrary and capricious," the Appellate Division dismissed Lust's appeal.
* Acceptance of a letter of resignation is not required for the resignation to be operative, all that is required is its timely delivery to the appointing authority or the appointing authority's designated representative.
** Many local civil service commissions have adopted a similar rule or regulation.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_01742.htm