The Civil Service Law §75 Disciplinary Hearing Officer [HO] found the Plaintiff bringing this CPLR Article 78 action guilty of misconduct and incompetence and recommend Plaintiff's termination from her employment with City of Rochester Police Accountability Board [Board]. The Board adopted the HO's findings and recommendation.
Plaintiff initiated the instant CPLR Article 78 action:
1. Alleging the disciplinary action taken against her failed to comply with provisions set out in Civil Service Law §75(2) as the Board, which (a) adopted the HO's findings concerning the disciplinary charges served on Plaintiff and (b) accepted the HO's recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed, dismissal of Plaintiff from her position, lacked jurisdiction to discipline her; and
2. Alleging the City's administrative responses to her requests for documents pursuant to New York State's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] provided inadequate and contained redacted materials without proper justification.
With respect to Plaintiff's argument addressing the Board's alleged lack of jurisdiction as a result of a failure to comply with the relevant provisions of §75, the Appellate Division said it agreed with Plaintiff's arguments, noting that a disciplinary hearing on §75 charges preferred against an employee "shall be held by the officer or body having the power to remove the person against whom such charges are preferred, or by a deputy or other person designated by such officer or body in writing for that purpose". In the words of the Appellate Division, in the absence of "a written delegation authorizing a deputy or other person to conduct the hearing, 'the removing board or officer has no jurisdiction to discipline an employee'".
As to Plaintiff's claims that "... a number of her FOIL requests were improperly denied and that the City provided inadequate responses and redacted materials without proper justification", the Appellate Division noted that "There is a presumption that government documents are available for inspection, and the burden rests on the agency resisting disclosure to demonstrate that they are exempt by articulating a particularized and specific justification".
With respect to the disciplinary action taken against the Plaintiff, the Appellate Division unanimously annulled the Board's disciplinary decision "on the law without costs to the extent that it terminated petitioner from her employment" and granted Plaintiff's petition "to the extent that [Petitioner] is reinstated to her position with back pay, less any unemployment benefits received", and remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with its decision.
With respect to Plaintiff's concerns with the City's response to her FOIL requests, the Appellate Division said that "Because the record before [it] is insufficient to enable [the Court] to determine whether a legitimate basis existed for the City's responses to those portions of [Plaintiff's] requests, the Appellate Division remitted the matter to Supreme Court for in camera review of the requested FOIL items and a determination as to the merits of Petitioner's FOIL claims.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.