An objection to a statement in a court's opinion that is determined to be "dicta" does not provide a basis for appeal

The views of a judge expressed in his or her opinion that do not have any impact or are required for the resolution or determination of a specific case before the court are referred to as dicta. They constitute statements in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and thus only reflect only the views of the writer of the opinion and although they might be interesting, and possibly instructive, they are not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. This appeal from a CPLR Articel 78 decision by Supreme Court concers an appeal of a statement by Supreme Court that the Appellate Division deemed to constitute dicta. 

College student A, attending College X, filed a complaint pursuant to College X's "Student Sexual Misconduct Policy" [Policy] alleging that another college student [Student B] attending College Y had violated the Policy during an incident that occurred off-campus. College X subsequently advised Student B that, after a thorough investigation, it had determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Student B had violated College X's Policy and that College X would contact College Y and provide it with a redacted copy of the investigation report and record documents.

Student B initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking, among other things, [1] to annul College X's determination, contending that it was arbitrary and capricious and [2] to enjoin College X from giving the complaint and investigation record to College Y.

Supreme Court granted Student B's petition, finding that, because petitioner was not a student at College X and the alleged misconduct took place off campus, College X lacked jurisdiction under the Policy and, as such, College X's  determination was arbitrary and capricious.  In addition, Supreme Court opined that it "f[ound] that the conduct demonstrated by [College X] towards [Student B] during the initial course of this investigation was a clear violation of [Student B's] constitutional rights."

College X appealed the Supreme Court's ruling but only for the purposed of vindicating itself with respect to that part of the Supreme Court's decision that stated that College X had violated Student B's constitutional rights.

The Appellate Division, noting that College X did not challenge Supreme Court's holding that its decision was arbitrary and capricious, concluded College X's appeal sought only to vacate that part of the Supreme Court's decision finding that College X violated Student B's constitutional rights,

The Appellate Division, citing Pollicino v Roemer & Featherstonhaugh, 277 AD2d 666, pointed out that the focus of College X's appeal, therefor was appealing dicta, as the inclusion of that statements was "not necessary to resolve [the] issue." On the other hand, noted the Appellate Division, College X did to challenge Supreme Court's holding that College X's actions in this instance were arbitrary and capricious. As "disagreement with dicta does not provide a basis to take an appeal" the court said that "this issue is not properly before us", implying that neither was the issue concerning Supreme Court's holding that College X's actions were arbitrary and capricious as College X had not appealed that branch of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Although Student B, in effect, prevailed in the appeal of the Supreme Court's ruling filed by College X, the Appellate Division declined to issue sanctions, explaining that although [College X's] argument lacks merit, we do not find it to be frivolous."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_03872.htm

Establishing a violation of a right to substantive administrative due process

The Plaintiffs in this action were formerly civil immigration detainees at the Orange County Correctional Facility [Jail] where they were treated for serious mental illnesses. Alleging that Orange County and some of its agencies and officials [Defendants] failed to provide planning for, or discharge plans upon release,* violated their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiffs initiated litigation in United States District Court seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The district court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and Plaintiffs appealed .

The United StatesCourt of Appeals, Second Circuit, vacated the district court's ruling and remanded the matter to the district court for "further proceedings," finding that Plaintiffs "stated a plausible claim for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment for deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs."

Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the Defendants were responsible for providing them with medical care while they were detained at a county detention facility [Jail] that houses civil immigration detainees pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement between Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] and Orange County.**

Defendants asked the Circuit Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' entire Complaint for failure to state a claim, contending that "there is no established substantive due process right to the post-release measures inherent in discharge plans." The Defendants argued that the government’s duty of care ends "the instant the inmate walks through the prison gates and into the civilian world, because that is when the inmate’s ability to secure medication or care on his own behalf is restored" to him or her."

Noting that "[t]his Court ... has never held that the state’s duties to an inmate or detainee extend beyond their release" ... Plaintiffs’ theory in this case is that “[d]ischarge planning is an essential part of mental healthcare in institutional settings” and “Defendants are constitutionally obliged to provide Plaintiffs with adequate medical care while they are confined to immigration detention.”

Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true and drawing all reasonable, the Circuit Court said that it found that Plaintiffs "have plausibly alleged that discharge planning is an essential part of in-custody care" and concluded that despite the forward-looking nature of discharge planning, a claim for damages caused by the lack of it can be considered a claim for deprivation of in-custody care for purposes of the “special relationship” exception. However,  on remand it will be necessary for Plaintiffs to prove to a fact-finder that "the care they complain of is the type that should have been provided to  them during their detention."

Citing Pena v. DePrisco, 432 F.3d 98, the court explained that "those in civil detention, as were Plaintiffs in this case, are also afforded a right to be free from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs." Further, "in order to establish a violation of a right to substantive due process, such a plaintiff must demonstrate not only government action but also that the government action was so ‘egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.'”

While remaining the matter for factual development as Plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim, this does not mean that Plaintiffs have established their entitlement to relief and the will need to provide evidence to support their allegations. Further, opined the court, "Defendants have raised significant factual issues that need to be fleshed out through discovery, including whether the discharge planning measures Plaintiffs identify should be provided as part of in-custody care (rather than undertaken upon or after release), the medical effects of a temporary deprivation of psychotropic medication, the causal relationship between the alleged interruption in Plaintiffs’ treatment and the consequences they complain of, and whether the circumstances of Plaintiffs’ release were so unexpected that Defendants could not have anticipated, and properly planned for, their release at the time it occurred."

However, at this, the pleading stage, the Circuit Court indicated that it has simply held that Plaintiffs have adequately stated a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim justifying vacating the district court's opinion and remanding the matter for "proceedings consistent with this opinion." The Circuit also noted that the district court, in addition, may consider various issues it did not reach in its opinion such as (1) whether the Plaintiffs adequately pled a county policy, practice, or custom for purposes of Monell liability***; (2) whether Plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim against [a named Defendant]; and (3) whether [that named Defendant] is entitled to qualified immunity.****

* Plaintiffs alleged that discharge planning is a routine and necessary component of institutional mental health treatment.

** The decision notes that the policies and protocols governing Defendants and others providing treatment at the Jail themselves demand such discharge planning. Both ICE and Orange County have written policies recognizing that mental health discharge planning is an essential component of mental health treatment in institutional settings.

*** Under Monell v. Department of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), a municipal government can be held liable under Section 1983 if a plaintiff can demonstrate that a deprivation of a federal right occurred as a result of a "policy" of the local government's legislative body or of those local officials whose acts may fairly be said to be those of the municipality.

**** "Qualified immunity" protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d3b6f5e-d0bf-47c4-b631-a629c71a2763/1/doc/17-3506_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8d3b6f5e-d0bf-47c4-b631-a629c71a2763/1/hilite/

Election of the forum in which the appeal is filed determines the procedures that are to be followed

Subdivision 1 of Section 76 of the Civil Service Law, "Appeals from determinations in disciplinary proceedings," in pertinent part provides that an officer or employee may appeal an adverse disciplinary determination made by the appointing authority to either [1] the State Civil Service [CSC] or the municipal civil service commission having jurisdiction or [2] filing a timely CPLR Article 78 action in Supreme Court.*

The New York City Department of Corrections [DOC] filed disciplinary charges against one of its employees [Petitioner] alleging Petitioner had violated certain DOC rules. DOC conducted a disciplinary hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, during which proceeding Petitioner admitted having violated such rules. DOC found Petitioner guilty of the charges preferred against him and terminated his employment.

DOC then advised Petitioner that he could appeal the appointing officer's determination to either the Civil Service Commission [CSC] or to Supreme Court in accordance with CPLR Article 78. Petitioner was also advised that were he to elect to appeal to the CSC, CSC's determination would be final and conclusive.

Petitioner elected to appeal the determination to the CSC and, after a hearing, on August 20, the CSC affirmed the appointing officer's determination and the penalty imposed by the appointing authority. Petitioner then initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking a judicial review the appointing officer's determination. DOC moved to dismiss the proceeding.

Supreme Court granted the DOC's motion dismissing Petitioner's Article 78 proceeding and Petitioner appealed.

Initially the Appellate Division noted that "[u]nless a shorter time is provided in the law authorizing the proceeding," an Article 78 action against a entity or officer must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the person or entity seeking the judicial review.  Further, said the court, "An administrative determination becomes final and binding ... when the individual or body seeking review has been aggrieved by it".

In this instance the Appellate Division found that DOC's determination terminating Petitioner's employment was issued on June 4, 2015, and the CSC decision sustaining that determination was issued in August. As Petitioner did not commence this CPLR Article 78 proceeding until following February, the Appellate Division concluded that Petitioner's Article 78 proceeding was "time-barred."

In addition, the Appellate Division noted that Civil Service Law §76(3) provides that "[t]he decision of such civil service commission shall be final and conclusive, and not subject to further review in any court." Accordingly, said the court, because Petitioner elected to appeal to the CSC, he may only seek judicial review if the DOC has acted illegally, unconstitutionally, or in excess of its jurisdiction. Here, however, the Article 78 petition submitted to Supreme Court did not allege or present facts demonstrating that the DOC acted illegally, unconstitutionally, or in excess of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that Petitioner failed to state any basis upon which his appeal could be considered by the court.

* An appeal to the State or municipal commission must be filed in writing within twenty days after service of written notice of the disciplinary determination. In the event such notice is provided by registered mail, an additional three days to file the appeal is permitted.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_03966.htm

Challenging an unsatisfactory annual performance rating

An educator [Petitioner] challenged his unsatisfactory annual performance review rating but Supreme Court granted the appointing authority's cross-motion to dismiss the proceeding Petitioner brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's action.

The Appellate Division said:

1. The Petitioner has failed to show that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith;

2. The record established that there was a rational basis for the determination to uphold petitioner's U-rating, which was based on insubordination and unprofessional conduct during the relevant school year; and

3. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate that there were procedural deficiencies in the performance review process resulting in the U-rating that undermined the integrity or fairness of the process.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_03301.htm

The anatomy of a challenge to a civil service commission's action rescinding an employee's appointment based on a criminal conviction

In consideration of the employee's [Plaintiff's] criminal history, the County Civil Service Commission [Commission] revoked Plaintiff's eligibility, certification and appointment to his Title A position, resulting in the termination of Plaintiff from service. The Commission also disqualified and removed the Plaintiff's name from an eligible list for appointment to a different title, Title B. Plaintiff initiated an Article 78 action challenging the Commission's decisions.

The record indicates that Plaintiff, in connection with his application for Title A, disclosed certain criminal history to the Commission. The Commission later sent letters to Plaintiff seeking additional documents and information concerning his criminal history. Although Plaintiff did not provide the documents sought by the Commission,* as the result of an administrative error, Plaintiff was certified eligible and, subsequently, appointed to the Title A position.

Subsequently, the County facility where Plaintiff worked was to be privatized. In accordance with an agreement enabling employees who did not want to work for the privatized company to be transferred to other job titles or work locations, Plaintiff applied for the Title B position and in connection with his application for the Title B position Plaintiff disclosed prior criminal convictions that had not been disclosed when he applied for the Title A position.

Ultimately the Commission notified Plaintiff that it was revoking his eligibility certification and appointment, terminating his employment in Title A and disqualifying him from the eligible list for the Title B position. The reasons advanced by the Commission for its actions with respect to the Title B position were Plaintiff's "disrespect for the process of law and order as evidenced by your record of convictions and failure to cooperate with your investigation." Plaintiff appealed the Commission's decision, submitting letters attesting to his good character and good work performance, as well as educational and training certificates he had earned. The Commission then advised Plaintiff that "it had determined that the 'original notification of disqualification stands,' and that [Plaintiff] will be terminated from his [Title A] position and removed from [Title B eligible list].

Plaintiff thereupon commenced his CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Commission's  determination. Supreme Court, granted so much of the petition as sought to restore the Plaintiff's eligibility certification and appointment and his employment in Title A, with back pay and benefits, and to restore the Plaintiff to the eligible list for the Title B position. The Commission appealed the Supreme Court's determination but the Appellate Division sustained the lower court's ruling.

The Appellate Division addressed a number of elements crucial to its consideration of the Commission's appeal.

Procedure: Judicial review of an administrative determination made without a formal hearing is limited to whether the determination was arbitrary or capricious or without a rational basis in the administrative record, and once it has been determined that an agency's conclusion has a sound basis in reason, the judicial function is at an end.**

Controlling statutory law: Civil Service Law §50[4] provides that the state civil service department or appropriate municipal commission may investigate the qualifications and background of an eligible individual after he or she has been appointed, and may revoke a certificate of appointment and direct the termination of employment, "upon finding facts which if known prior to appointment, would have warranted his [or her] disqualification, or upon a finding of illegality, irregularity or fraud of a substantial nature in his [or her] application, examination or appointment . . . provided, however, that no such certification shall be revoked or appointment terminated more than three years after it is made, except in the case of fraud."

In this instance the Commission's determination to revoke the Plaintiff's eligibility certification and appointment and terminate his employment in Title A found arbitrary, capricious, and without a rational basis in the administrative record as Plaintiff was appointed to this position in 2011. Accordingly,, the Commission was precluded from revoking his certification and terminating his appointment from his Title A position in 2016 except for fraud. The Commission, however, did not alleged it bases its determination on the ground of fraud.***

Considering the Commission's determination to disqualify the Plaintiff from the eligible list for the Title B position, the Appellate Division concluded that its ruling was arbitrary, capricious, and without a rational basis in the administrative record as it was conceded that Plaintiff disclosed his prior convictions when seeking employment in a Title B position. Further, opined the court, "the record provided no sound basis to conclude that the Plaintiff failed in 2016 to cooperate with the investigation or to disclose material facts."

Addressing Plaintiff's criminal convictions, the Appellate Division cited Article 23-A of the Correction Law, explaining that this provision "protects persons who seek employment, after having been convicted of one or more criminal offenses, from unfair discrimination" and prohibits both public sector and private sector employer to deny a license or employment application by reason of the individual's having been "previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses" absent one of two exceptions permitted set out Correction Law §752 in applies.**** These exceptions are:

[a] There is a direct relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the specific license or employment sought or held by the individual; or

[b] The issuance or continuation of the license or the granting or continuation of the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public"

The Appellate Division said that there nothing in the record indicating that the Commission determined that an exception to Correction Law §752 was applicable or considered the factors to be applied in making that determination.

Thus, said the Appellate Division, it agreed with the Supreme Court's determination granting so much of the petition as sought to restore the Plaintiff's eligibility certification and appointment and his employment in Title A, with back pay and benefits, and to restore the Plaintiff to the eligible list for appointment to the Title B  position.

* Plaintiff later contended that during the investigation into his criminal background he disclosed certain criminal convictions, but was not asked about certain other out-of-state convictions, explaining that he was under the impression that the additional documents the Commission sought pertained to an investigation for a different position that he had applied for, but in which he was no longer interested.

** Where an administrative adjudication made after a formal hearing, Supreme Court would transfer an Article 78 petition seeking judicial to the Appellate Division.

*** Citing Giangiacomo v Village of Liberty, 50 AD2d at 666, the Appellate Division observed that "under the circumstances presented, the record did not reveal the existence of fraud of a substantial nature" in connection with Plaintiff's application for examination and appointment to Title A.

**** Correction Law §753 sets out eight factors an employer is to consider when evaluating an applicant with a criminal record for employment.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_03785.htm