Candidates for employment as a police officer with the County were required to undergo a background investigation and pass a psychological evaluation, among other things.
A candidate for appointment with the County was not recommended for appointment to the position of police officer based on the results of Candidate's psychological evaluation. The County Civil Service Department [CSD] so notified Candidate. The Candidate appealed the Department's determination, submitting an independent evaluation by a psychologist who disagreed with the conclusion of the CSD's evaluator. Following an appeal interview, the CSD's Appeal Committee concluded that "there was no significant evidence to reverse [Candidate's] disqualification".
Candidate initiated the instant CPLR Article 78 petition challenging CSD's determination. Supreme Court sustained CSD's motion to dismiss Candidate's petition and dismissed the Plaintiff's Article 78 petition. Candidate appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision explaining that candidates for employment as police officers are required to undergo a background investigation and pass a psychological evaluation and that CSD's medical experts did not recommended Candidate for appointment the position of police officer and that CSD had so notified Candidate.
Citing a number New York State Court decisions, the Appellate Division observed that:
1. "An appointing authority has wide discretion in determining the fitness of candidates, and this discretion is particularly broad in the hiring of law enforcement officers, to whom high standards may be applied", and
2. "So long as the administrative determination is not irrational or arbitrary and capricious, this Court will not disturb it".
The Appellate Division's decision then pointed out that an action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts and that "If a determination is rational it must be sustained even if the court concludes that another result would also have been rational" citing Matter of Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve v New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 34 NY3d at 195" [internal quotation marks omitted].
Further, the Appellate Division noted that "[I]n an article 78 proceeding, the reviewing court may not weigh the evidence, choose between conflicting proof, or substitute its assessment of the evidence or witness credibility for that of the administrative factfinder" and in the instant proceeding the Supreme Court "properly concluded that the Department's determination disqualifying the [Candidate] for appointment to the position of police office was neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious".
Observing that in determining whether a candidate is medically qualified to serve as a police officer, the appointing agency is "entitled to rely upon the findings of its own medical personnel, even if those findings are contrary to those of professionals retained by the candidate", the Appellate Division opined that "It is not for the courts to choose between the diverse professional opinions. That is the function of the proper department heads and as long as they act reasonably and responsibly, the courts will not interfere".
The Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court properly granted the CSD's motions pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f) to dismiss the Candidate's petition, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.