A CPLR
Article 78 action was filed by the "Police Benevolent Association of the City of
CCRB had promulgated this amendment to its regulations after a "detailed study" of the use of BWCs found "that officers often turned on their BWCs too late, prematurely turned them off, or failed to use them at all".
Sustaining the change initiated by CCRB, the Appellate Division opined the amendment "is not irrational, unreasonable or inconsistent with the governing statute and [CCRB's action] should be given deference."
Citing Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. 0f Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale and Mamaroneck, 34 NY2d at page 231 and other decisions, the Appellate Division held that "definition's expansion is rational and supported by the detailed study and that decisions in prior cases concerning other expansions of the "Abuse of Authority" definition "did not compel a different result".
The court also noted that CCRB's addition of a definition of "severe act of bias" was not done in excess of CCRB's jurisdiction nor was it promulgated in an arbitrary and capricious manner and the challenged regulation is not "inconsistent with the statutory text" as the City Counsel expressly delegated to CCRB the authority to define the phrase.
The Appellate Division further opined that "The new regulation delegating CCRB's authority to initiate complaints was also an appropriate exercise of jurisdiction", pointing out that the Petitioners did not challenge the breadth of the delegation but argue that CCRB is not authorized to delegate this authority at all.
The court ruled that "A plain reading of the Charter shows that CCRB is empowered to initiate complaints on its own" and to "appoint such employees as are necessary to exercise its powers, including but not limited to the power to initiate complaints ... and fulfill its duties", citing §440[c][1], [5] of the New York City.
The court also held that the amendment renaming two disposition categories, [1] from "unsubstantiated" to "unable to determine," and [2] from "exonerated" to "within NYPD guidelines" was not arbitrary and capricious", noting that there was evidence in the record to support CCRB's position that "the changes would promote understanding by the public, both from feedback it received and from public hearing testimony".
The Appellate Division also rejected Petitioners' arguments to the contrary, explaining they do not prove a lack of sound basis in reason or that "the changes were akin without regard to the facts and [these] changes may not be disturbed simply because petitioners question the 'wisdom' of the agency's approach as to the terminology used".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.