Dismissal of charges in the course of a Section 75 disciplinary hearing

Dismissal of charges in the course of a Section 75 disciplinary hearing
Source: Reader's inquiry

From time to time, a reader will submit a question concerning a public personnel law issue. One recent question viewed as being of general interest to the readers of this BLOG:

"Where is the authority to dismiss administrative disciplinary charges during the hearing process found?"

NYPPL does not believe that a hearing officer has any authority to "dismiss" a Section 75 disciplinary charge or specification.*

Although the appointing authority may elect to "withdraw" a charge or specification, we know of no such authority being vested in a Section 75 hearing officer unless the appointing authority, itself, is serving as the hearing officer or body and so acts.

The authority of a hearing officer is limited in the context of a Section 75 disciplinary action. The hearing officer may either sustain some or all of the charges and specifications served on the employee or find that there was no substantial evidence to prove all or some of the charges and specifications so served.

As to the actual act of dismissing charges, as a practical matter the hearing officer would simply make findings to the effect that the appointing authority has not sustained its burden of proof and recommend that the charges be withdraw or dismissed, with or without prejudice, at the discretion of the hearing officer or find the employee "not guilty" of the charge[s].

As the doctrine of "double jeopardy" does not apply in administrative disciplinary actions, unless the appointing authority elects to dismiss the disciplinary charges "with prejudice," it may subsequently file charges based on the same event[s] on the employee.

* In contrast, an arbitrator or arbitration panel may grant a motion to dismiss charges and specifications where the final determination is to be made by the arbitrator or an arbitration panel as is the case in a disciplinary proceeding held pursuant to Education Law Section 3020-a. Any challenge to such action would be via an appeal pursuant to CPLR Article 75 by the appointing authority to vacate the award, in whole or in part.

Applying for disability retirement benefits

Applying for disability retirement benefits
Miata v McCall, 277 AD2d 590

Joseph Miata, a Long Island State Parks and Recreation Commission police officer, filed an application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits after he suffered an ankle injury as the result of his tripping while leaving work on August 24, 1995.

After conducting a hearing during which conflicting expert testimony was presented, McCall denied Miata’s application for benefits. Miata appealed, contending that the hearing officer’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed the appeal. It viewed the testimony by Stuart Kandel, an orthopedic surgeon, that when he examined Miata he concluded that there were no objective abnormalities inasmuch as he noted no swelling, limping, instability nor restriction of motion in comparison to his right ankle to constitute the required substantial evidence.

While Kandel diagnosed Miata as having a sprained ankle and, in his opinion, not incapacitated from the performance of his duties, Miata’s expert testified to the contrary. Situations involving conflicting expert medical opinion present a credibility issue for McCall to resolve. The fact that the record could support a contrary conclusion did not require the court to vacate McCall’s determination.

Absence from an assigned post

Absence from an assigned post
Gamma v City of Newburgh, 277 AD2d 236

Absence from one’s post is a serious matter as former Newburgh police officer Stephen J. Gamma learned.

Gamma was found guilty of charges that he violated both supervisory instructions and the Rules and Regulations of the Department by leaving his duty post without the approval of a superior in his chain of command. As a result, Gamma was terminated.

In response to Gamma’s appeal, the Appellate Division decided that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the hearing officer’s findings. As to the penalty imposed, termination, the court said that [t]the penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness, citing Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222.

The court said that a police force is a quasi-military organization demanding strict discipline and in matters involving police misconduct, great deference is to be accorded to determinations regarding the appropriate discipline of its members.