Dec 3, 2025

Disciplinary decision and the penalty imposed remanded for review with instructions to consider only timely charges and specifications

In this appeal of an administrative disciplinary action which found an employee of the New York State Unified Court System [UCS] guilty of the charges filed against him, the Appellate Division notes that where the issue is whether an agency complied with its own internal procedures, the appropriate standard of review is whether the determination was "made in violation of lawful procedure".

Further, opined the court, it is a "fundamental administrative law principle that an agency's rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to statutory authority are binding upon it as well as the individuals affected by the rule or regulation".

The employee [Petitioner] had been served with a notice of charges and specifications alleging that he had engaged in three specified acts of misconduct when he used biased and discriminatory language in three Facebook comments he had posted on the Internet. One such comment, however, was subsequently determined to have been "untimely" at the time it was charged and served.

The Appellate Division's decision notes that where the issue is whether an agency complied with its own internal procedures, the appropriate standard of review is whether the determination was "made in violation of lawful procedure" as it is a "fundamental administrative law principle that an agency's rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to statutory authority are binding upon it as well as the individuals affected by the rule or regulation".

The revised Hearing Officer's findings and recommendation had not distinguished between the sanction initially recommended by the hearing officer in consideration of finding the employee guilty all three alleged charges of misconduct and an appropriate reasonable sanction recommended by the hearing officer to be imposed based on the employee in consideration of the hearing officer's finding the individual guilty of the surviving two timely alleged acts of misconduct. 

The Appellate Division then remitted the matter to UCS for a new determination and recommendation of a penalty to be made by a hearing officer based solely on the two timely specified acts of misconduct, noting that "DILLON, J.P., LOVE and GOLIA, JJ., concur" while DOWLING, JJ., "voted to confirm the revised determination, deny the petition, and dismiss the proceeding on the merits, with a memorandum."

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