The Plaintiff in this CPLR Article 78 action
challenged the New York City Police Department's [NYPD], decision not select
Plaintiff for appoint as a probationary police officer. Supreme Court granted
NYPD's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition for failure to state a cause of
action. Plaintiff appealed but the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the
lower court's ruling.
The Appellate Division, noting the
Plaintiff failed "to allege any facts suggesting that NYPD's determination
was arbitrary and capricious," explained that Plaintiff's passage of the
civil service exam and other qualifications did not entitle him to an appointment.
Citing Matter of Gomez v Hernandez, 50 AD3d 404, the
Appellate Division opined "Even [well-qualified] candidates such as [Plaintiff]
... can be denied [appointment] provided appropriate discretion is used within
the confines of the 'one-of-three' rule in Civil Service Law §61.*
The court observed, "it is not
arbitrary and capricious for an agency to provide no reason for an appointing
official's exercise of discretion in declining to appoint a specific candidate".
The decision also noted that Plaintiff's "allegations of delays and
irregularities in the selection process do not meet his 'heavy burden of proof,
for which conclusory allegations and speculative assertions will not suffice'".
* Click HERE to access NYPPL's comments
concerning the origin and application of the Rule of Three.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's
decision posted on the Internet.