The New York City Housing Authority [NYCHA], after a Civil Service Law §75 disciplinary hearing, found the Petitioner guilty of 14 of the 15 charges of employee misconduct and incompetence leveled against him. The disciplinary penalty imposed: termination from employment with NYCHA.
Petitioner filed a CPLR Article 78 challenging the NYCHA's decision contending the disciplinary charges were untimely. The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed NYCHA decision and the penalty imposed on Petitioner, ruling that the disciplinary proceedings were timely commenced pursuant to Civil Service Law §75(4) as Petitioner was served with the amended charges within 18 months of the earliest of the various charged incidents of the employee's alleged misconduct. The Court also rejected Petitioner's argument that any delay in commencing the hearing prejudiced him, observing that any the delay in holding the disciplinary hearing "was caused by [Petitioner's] own violation of NYCHA's vaccine policy."
The Appellate Division opined that "substantial evidence supported the trial officer's report sustaining 14 of the 15 charges of employee misconduct and incompetence leveled against [the Petitioner]." The Appellate Division also noted that NYCHA submitted testimony from Petitioner's former supervisors, along with multiple counseling memoranda, which showed that Petitioner repeatedly refused to comply with their directives and to perform the tasks assigned to him and testimony in the record "established that [Petitioner] became argumentative and hostile when asked to complete tasks, to the extent that his behavior required reports to NYCHA's Office of Safety and Security."
The Court also reject Petitioner's claims that NYCHA witnesses' were allegedly bias finding that "there exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the trial officer".
Addressing the penalty imposed on Petitioner, dismissal from his position with NYCHA, the Appellate Division said "Termination of [Petitioner's] employment does not shock one's sense of fairness as it is not so disproportionate to the seriousness of the multiple charges of misconduct and incompetency proven" and Petitioner submitted no evidence showing that "he was terminated after engaging in protected activity, and the record was clear that he was discharged due to his own incompetence and misconduct."
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.