Determining the fitness of candidates for appointment to positions in the public service

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.* As long as the administrative determination is not irrational or arbitrary and capricious, courts typically will not disturb it. ** 

Plaintiff commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking judicial review of a Civil Service Commission's decision disqualifying him for a position as a police officer. Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition and dismissed the proceeding and Plaintiff appealed the court's ruling to the Appellate Division.

Addressing Plaintiff's complaint that the Commission had wrongfully denied his request for disclosure of information pertaining to his disqualification, the Appellate Division opined that the Commission's denial of Plaintiff's request was proper, citing Grossman v McMahon, 261 AD2d 54. In his appeal Grossman had contended that his request certain the background information should have been approved. The Grossman court disagreed, explaining that in a proceeding "of this nature, where disclosure is available only by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 408," Supreme Court has broad discretion in granting or denying disclosure "... although it must balance the needs of the party seeking discovery against such opposing interests as expedition and confidentiality."*** 

In the instant case the Appellate Division held that the Commission's determination disqualifying the Plaintiff from eligibility for appointment to the position of police officer was neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious.

Addressing another argument raised by Plaintiff, the Appellate Division said that the Commission's disqualification determination violated neither §296[15] of the Human Rights Law nor §§750[5] or 752 of the Correction Law, citing Little v County of Westchester, 36 AD3d at 617.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division said it agreed with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the Plaintiff's petition and dismissal of the proceeding. 

* See Matter of Rogan v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 91 AD3d 658. 

** Matter of Verme v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 5 AD3d 498 

*** In Grossman the Appellate Division concluded that "Supreme Court did not abused its considerable discretion in denying disclosure of the background investigation file" Grossman had sought.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: 
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_04304.htm

AELE announces its online Educational Center

The Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE) has announced the availability of its "Online Educational Center (OEC)." 

Through its OEC, the AELE said it will expand its dedication to providing objective, timely, accurate, legal, scientific, and evidence-based information and operational guidance for the enhancement of the criminal justice community and to reduce potential criminal and civil liability of criminal justice professionals and municipalities. 

This is the location for registering for future AELE webinars, virtual seminars, and virtual and ON-DEMAND programs. 

Educational programs will be added as they are completed. AELE invites checking the site a regular part of your organization's week's activities. 

Check out the AELEOEC at www.aeleoec.org

Clear and convincing evidence held to support a challenged administrative decision

The driver [Plaintiff] of a New York City Transit Authority bus was issued a summons for alleging seriously injuring a  pedestrian walking in a marked crosswalk with the right of way as the result of Plaintiff's failing to exercise due care. A New York State Department of Motor Vehicles [DMV] Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] found clear and convincing evidence was presented in support of the allegation and the DMV's Traffic Violations Bureau Appeal Board affirmed the ALJ's ruling and the penalty imposed: suspension of Plaintiff's driver's license for six months.

Plaintiff initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the DMV's determination. A divided Appellate Division granted Plaintiff's petition, annulled and vacated DMV's determination, and reinstated Plaintiff 's driver's license.* DMV appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision.

The Court said that the evidence at the administrative hearing included [1] an investigative report from the accident-reconstruction specialist who investigated the incident, [2] a report from a police officer who responded to the scene, and [3] a statement provided by the Plaintiff after the accident.

Noting that the accident-reconstruction specialist testified at the hearing, reiterating his report's conclusion concerning the victim's injuries, the Court of Appeals opined that DMV's determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record  that Plaintiff had caused serious physical injury to a pedestrian as the result of Plaintiff's failing to exercise due care in operating the bus in violation of §1146(c) of New York State's Vehicle and Traffic Law.

The judgment of the Appellate Division was reversed, with costs, Plaintiff's petition denied, and the determination of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles reinstated.

* See 159 AD3d 607.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_03564.htm