New York Public Personnel Law

Sep 21, 2026

New York State Bar Association Labor and Employment Section 2026 Fall Meeting

If an administrative agency reaches contrary results in a particular decision on substantially similar facts, it must provide an explanation

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,

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.

Sep 19, 2026

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending September 17, 2026

New York State's Attorney Letitia James establishes AI whistleblower site The Albany Times Union newspaper reports New York State's Attorney General has created an Internet site on which individuals and organizations may report AI concerns. More

Utah State Sen. Kirk Cullimore has helped put Utah at the forefront of AI Data The focus is privacy and digital identity policy and is designed to be replicated beyond Utah. Read More

Local election officials are welcoming a Supreme Court voting ruling The ruling blocks sweeping changes to mail voting just weeks before the midterms. Months of uncertainty forced officials to prepare contingency plans and created additional work during an already demanding election cycle. Read More

Improving Emergency Response with Modern Cellular Networks This e-book features real-world examples from police, fire, EMS, and 911 agencies that have strengthened connectivity across vehicles, stations, and temporary command sites. DOWNLOAD

Govern AI Before It Governs You Practical templates, scorecards, and worksheets to help your agency govern AI Download the Free Kit

From Threat to Trust: Building Security into Public Workflows Protecting today's public sector means building security into every workflow — not bolting it on afterward. This thought leadership paper explores why embedding security directly into devices and everyday workflows is essential for reducing risk, improving resilience and supporting mission success. Download

Applied Intelligence: How High-Performance Workstations Are Driving Public Innovation AI innovation starts with the right infrastructure. Learn how high-performance workstations help government agencies process data faster, protect sensitive information and power AI-driven outcomes. Download the paper to discover practical strategies for modernizing your technology foundation. DOWNLOAD

Sep 18, 2026

Employee challenged her termination for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination requirement after her Employer denied her request for a religious exemption

Plaintiff was terminated from her position with New York State Unified Court System [Employer] as the result of her failure to comply with Employer's COVID-19 vaccination requirement after Employer denied her request for a religious exemption.

Employee than sued Employer alleging Employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to accommodate her religion beliefs.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiff, holding that there was no genuine dispute that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of religious discrimination—resting in large part on statements made by the Employer during discovery—and that the Employer did not demonstrate that granting an accommodation would constitute an undue hardship.

Employer appealed, contending that the Federal District Court failed to modify the prima facie test for failure-to-accommodate religion claims in light of EEOC v Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768.

The Second Circuit said that it agreed that Abercrombie abrogated the Second Circuit's earlier Title VII precedents. However, because the Federal District Court "improperly deemed statements in the discovery record to be judicial admissions" the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the matter "for further proceedings" consistent with its instant opinion.

Click HERE to access the opinion of Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, posted on the Internet.

Editor in Chief Harvey Randall served as Director of Personnel, State University of New York Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor's Office of Employee Relations; Principal Attorney, Counsel's Office, New York State Department of Civil Service; and Colonel, JAG, Command Headquarters, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.