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

October 30, 2024

Candidate's application for promotion denied under color of the agency's policy of denying promotion while disciplinary charges are pending against the applicant

The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority [MTA], denied Plaintiff's applications for promotion to the rank of Lieutenant by personnel orders dated October 6, 2021, and October 26, 2022.

Supreme Court dismissed the CPLR Article 78 proceeding initiated by Plaintiff challenging MTA's denial of his applications for promotion and Plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling.

With respect to MTA's order denying Plaintiff's application seeking promotion dated October 6, 2021, the Appellate Division observed that Plaintiff's Article 78 petition was filed "well over four months after the October 6, 2021 personnel order" was issued and is "therefore time-barred as to that order".

Turning to the October 26, 2022 personnel order denying Plaintiff's application for promotion, the Appellate Division noted that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Department [MTAPD]  had "demonstrated a rational basis for its decision not to promote", i.e., the fact that disciplinary charges were then pending against Plaintiff. Noting that "It is undisputed that disciplinary charges against [Petitioner] were pending at the time of the October 26, 2022 personnel order denying him a promotion", MTAPD's decision was consistent with the agency's "practice," according to the affidavit of its assistant chief in the Internal Affairs Bureau, "to not promote MTAPD members to the rank of lieutenant (or higher) while they have any disciplinary action pending."

Further, opined the Appellate Division, the fact that Petitioner "was ultimately cleared of the [disciplinary] charges does not make the [October 26, 2022] decision irrational", citing Kercado v Ward, 166 AD2d 280.

Dismissing Plaintiff's appeal, the Appellate Division observed "Petitioner's assertions that he was treated differently from other candidates, and that the MTAPD did not adhere to the collective bargaining agreement's deadlines for resolving disciplinary matters, are unsupported by the record".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.



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