A disciplinary penalty consisting of a “51 days' forfeiture” deemed already served while on prehearing suspension without pay, found appropriate under the circumstances

A disciplinary penalty consisting of a “51 days' forfeiture” deemed already served while on prehearing suspension without pay, found appropriate under the circumstances 
2015 NY Slip Op 02913, Appellate Division, First Department 

Supreme Court annulled the New York City’s Police Commissioner finding an employee [Employee] of the New York City Police Department [NYPD] guilty of multiple disciplinary charges filed against Employee and the penalty imposed by the Commissioner: 51 days' forfeiture, deemed already served while on pretrial suspension.”

The Police Commissioner appealed and the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the lower court’s ruling “on the law” and reinstated the penalty set by the Commissioner.

The Appellate Division noted that Employee had been found guilty of multiple disciplinary charges stemming from a variety of circumstances by a hearing officer including:

Accessing police computer information for personal purposes,

Supplying a resident address different from that of her actual address to obtain more favorable insurance rates, and

Patronizing an unlicensed establishment that served alcohol.

The court also noted that Employee’s at the NYPD reflected two prior disciplinary matters, one of which stemmed from “a DWI arrest” and resulted in a penalty of, among other things, one year on “dismissal probation.”

Under the circumstances, said the Appellate Division, the penalty imposed by the Commissioner was not so disproportionate to Employee's offenses “as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness” and found no basis to disturb the penalty imposed on Employee.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_02913.htm

_____________

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - a 442-page volume focusing on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. Now available in two formats - as a large, paperback print edition, and as an e-book. For more information click on

http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html

                                                            _____________

Rules and regulations of the Department of Civil Service reviewed.in accordance with §207 of the State Administrative Procedure Act

Rules and regulations of the Department of Civil Service reviewed in accordance with §207 of the State Administrative Procedure Act

Source: The New York State Register


§207 of the State Administrative Procedures Act, in pertinent part, provides that any rule adopted on or after its effective ion for the rule, provided that at a minimum every rule shall be initially reviewed no later than in the fifth calendar year after the year in which the rule is adopted, and, thereafter, every rule shall be re-reviewed at five-year intervals.

The April 15, 2015 issue of the New York State Register reports the publication of the Five Year review of certain existing rules and regulations set out in 4 NYCRR and the conclusion of the forty-five (45) day public comment period. No public comments were received regarding any of the rules and regulations listed below during this forty-five day comment period.

The rules and regulations reviewed were found to “have functioned consistent with the purposes underlying their adoption and are continued without modification:”

Adopted in 2000

1. Amendment to Chapter I of Title 4 of NYCRR (Rules for the Classified Service). The resolution added a new subdivision (vii) to paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of Rule 4.5 to provide for a probationary term for the position of “Thruway Maintenance Worker” of not less than 26 weeks nor more than 52 weeks.

2. Amendments to Chapter IV of 4 NYCRR (Regulations of the State Civil Service Commission [Commission’s Regulations]) A new §55.5 codified the long-standing Civil Service Commission practice of granting prior approval for certain examination rating keys, according to the conditions and standards set forth within such section, upon the request of the Civil Service Department’s Director of Examinations or his or her designee. The existing §§55.5 and 55.6 were renumbered §§55.6 and 55.7, respectively.

Adopted in 2005

Amendment to Chapter I of Title 4 of NYCRR (Rules for the Classified Service). The resolution added a new paragraph (viii) to subdivision (1) of subsection (b) of Rule 4.5 to provide for a probationary term for the positions of “University Police Officer 1” and “University Police Officer 1 (Spanish Language)” of not less than 52 weeks nor more than 78 weeks.

Adopted in 2010

Amendment to Chapter V of Title 4 of NYCRR (Regulations of the Department of Civil Service [President’s Regulations]). The resolution added a new paragraph to Rule 72.1 designating the Authorities Budget Office as a separate unit for suspension, demotion or displacement within the Department of State.

Individual’s right to due process in a disciplinary hearing was not violated when the complaining witness was absent from the hearing due to intimidation and feared to testify

Individual’s right to due process in a disciplinary hearing was not violated when the complaining witness was absent from the hearing due to intimidation and feared to testify

2015 NY Slip Op 03075, Appellate Division, First Department

The Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health adopted an Administrative Law Judge's recommendation to sustain the three charges alleging patient abuse and/or neglect by a certified nurse's aide [Aide]. The Aide appealed the Commissioner's determination but the Appellate Division sustained the Commissioner’s finding that the Aide was guilty of these three charges alleged in the notice of discipline.

The Appellate Division said that there was no basis for disturbing the ALJ’s determination with respect to the credibility of witnesses, citing Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436.

The court found that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s findings including:

1. Consistent testimony from several witnesses;

2. Photographs of the patient’s bruises; and

3. The facility's clinical records.

Further, the Appellate Division said that the Aide’s right to administrative due process was not violated as the result of the patient's absence at the hearing as the record supports the ALJ’s finding that the patient was intimidated and was afraid to testify.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03075.htm