Supreme Court denied Petitioner's motion for leave to renew the denial of his 2017 petition brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking judicial annulment of the City of New York et al's [Respondents] determinations terminating Petitioner's employment at the Administration for Children's Services and disqualifying him from employment with the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission. In addition, Supreme Court imposed sanctions on the Petitioner.
Petitioner appealed the instant decision of the Supreme Court, which ruling was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division said that the Supreme Court "providently exercised its discretion in denying [Petitioner's] motion to renew — his fourth — because he did not present any new evidence that would change the prior determination to dismiss the article 78 petition", citing Henry v Peguero, 72 AD3d 600, appeal dismissed, 15 NY3d 820.
Notwithstanding Petitioner's contention that a Kings County Supreme Court issued an order in an April 2025 ruling indicating that Petitioner "resigned from his position rather than being terminated" did not constitute new evidence, citing LFR Collections LLC v Blan Law Offs., 117 AD3d 486 and noting that the Appellate Division had affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's petition then at issue, opining that "the Administration for Children's Services properly elected to disregard [Petitioner's] resignation and prosecute the charges of misconduct against him under 4 NYCRR 5.3(b)"*, citing Matter of Patterson v City of New York, 173 AD3d 540.
In the words of the Appellate Division, "The finding by the Kings County Supreme Court that [Petitioner] resigned therefore does not change the outcome in any of the prior decisions in this case", again citing LFR Collections, 117 AD3d at 487.
*4 NYCRR 5.3(b), in relevant part, provides "Notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision, when charges of incompetency or misconduct have been or are about to be filed against an employee, the appointing authority may elect to disregard a resignation filed by such employee and to prosecute such charges and, in the event that such employee is found guilty of such charges and dismissed from the service, his termination shall be recorded as a dismissal rather than as a resignation."
Click HERE to access the decision of the Appellate Division posted on the Internet.