Plaintiff in this CPLR Article 78 proceeding sought to annul a determination of the Nassau County Civil Service Commission affirming its earlier determination disqualifying the Plaintiff to a position as a Nassau County probation officer. Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's judgment "on the law, with cost's", granted the Plaintiff's petition is granted and remitted the matter to the Nassau County Civil Service Commission for further proceedings in accordance its decision, set out below.
In the Matter of Richard Dopkin, appellant,
v
County of Nassau, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on September 16, 2026
2024-04836, (Index No. 606358/23)
Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.
Cheryl E. Chambers
Paul Wooten
Helen Voutsinas, JJ.
Law Offices of Louis D. Stober, Jr., LLC, Mineola, NY, for appellant.
Thomas A. Adams, County Attorney, Mineola, NY (Robert F. Van der Waag of counsel), for respondents.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of the Nassau County Civil Service Commission dated February 6, 2023, affirming its prior determination dated November 28, 2022, disqualifying the petitioner from eligibility for a position as a Nassau County probation officer, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Catherine Rizzo, J.), entered February 16, 2024. The judgment denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, the determination dated February 6, 2023, is annulled, and the matter is remitted to the Nassau County Civil Service Commission for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
The petitioner took and passed the Nassau County Probation Officer Trainee Examination and was placed on a list as an eligible candidate for employment as a probation officer. In November 2022, after conducting a background investigation, the Nassau County Civil Service Commission (hereinafter the Commission) notified the petitioner that he was disqualified from employment on the grounds of "disrespect for the process of law and order as evidenced by [the petitioner's] motor vehicle record." The petitioner appealed the Commission's determination, submitting, inter alia, a list of previous applicants with allegedly similar or more egregious legal records than the petitioner's, whose initial disqualifications from candidacy were reversed upon administrative appeal. In a determination dated February 6, 2023, the Commission affirmed its prior determination. The petitioner then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the Commission's February 6, 2023 determination. In a judgment entered February 16, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.
"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" (Matter of Dellisanti v Suffolk County Police Dept., 239 AD3d 976, 978 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Brown v County of Nassau, 214 AD3d 793, 795). "So long as the administrative determination is not irrational or arbitrary and capricious, this Court will not disturb it" (Matter of Dellisanti v Suffolk County Police Dept., 239 AD3d at 978 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Brown v County of Nassau, 214 AD3d at 795). "A decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious, and thus, where an agency reaches contrary results on substantially similar facts, it must provide an explanation" (Matter of O'Connor & Son's Home Improvement, LLC v Acevedo, 197 AD3d 1112, 1114 [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Mullen v County of Suffolk Police Dept., 307 AD2d 1036, 1037).
Here, the Commission failed to set forth any factual basis to explain why it was reaching a different result than it did with respect to the applications of purportedly similarly situated candidates (see Matter of O'Connor & Son's Home Improvement, LLC v Acevedo, 197 AD3d at 1114; Matter of Klein v Levin, 305 AD2d 316, 317). Thus, the Commission's determination on appeal to affirm its disqualification of the petitioner was arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of O'Connor & Son's Home Improvement, LLC v Acevedo, 197 AD3d at 1114; Matter of Nicolai v McLaughlin, 163 AD3d 572, 574).
In light of our determination, the petitioner's remaining contentions need not be reached.
Accordingly, we grant the petition, annul the determination dated February 6, 2023, and remit the matter to the Commission for a new determination of the petitioner's appeal from the determination dated November 28, 2022, to articulate the reasons, if any, for reaching a different result than it did with respect to the applications of purportedly similarly situated candidates raised by the petitioner.
LASALLE, P.J., CHAMBERS, WOOTEN and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.