Disciplinary charges brought more than 18 months after the incident held timely upon being shown to constitute a crime

The New York City Police Department [NYPD] terminated a police officer [Plaintiff] found guilty of charges that if proven in court, would constitute assault in the third degree. In addition to termination, Plaintiff's dismissal resulted in the forfeiture of his retirement benefits. Plaintiff appealed, contending that charges and specifications brought against him by the Civilian Complaint Review Board [CCRB] were untimely as "the charges were brought more than 18 months after the incident."

The presiding hearing officer, NYPD's Deputy Commissioner - Trials, ruled that the CCRB was required to show by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the underlying facts, if proven in court, would constitute a crime in order to go forward with the disciplinary action. The Deputy Commissioner then found, "by a preponderance of the credible evidence", that Plaintiff was guilty of assault in the third degree, as charged in the first specification, in that Plaintiff acted recklessly in the course of his attempting to arrest an individual and his recklessness "was a significant factor" which contributed to the individual's death.

The Deputy Commissioner's Report to the Police Commissioner recommended Plaintiff's dismissal from the NYPD and the Commissioner approved the Report and Recommendation and issued a final order dismissing Plaintiff from the NYPD.

Plaintiff then initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking a court order annulling the Commissioner's determination and directing his reinstatement. Plaintiff contended that the CCRB failed to present substantial evidence of his guilt and that the penalty of dismissal was shocking to the conscience.

The Appellate Division found that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Plaintiff had "recklessly caused injury to [the individual] by maintaining a prohibited chokehold for 9 to 10 seconds after exigent circumstances were no longer present, thereby disregarding the risk of injury."

Citing Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale and Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, and other decisions, the Appellate Division said it did not find the penalty imposed on Plaintiff "so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness" and opined that in Matter of Alfieri, 38 NY2d at 977, "[c]onduct far less serious than [Plaintiff's] has been found by the Court of Appeals to have a "destructive impact ... on the confidence which it is so important for the public to have in its police officers".  

Click HEREto access the text of the Appellate Division's decision.

 

Dismissal of an employee before completion of the probationary period

Citing Matter of Childs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 176 AD3d 560, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed Supreme Court's denial of the Plaintiff's petition seeking a court order annulling his former employer's determination dismissing Plaintiff from his employment as a probationary teacher. The court's decision notes that a probationary employee may be terminated "without a hearing for any reason or no reason at all, as long as the dismissal was not unlawful or in bad faith".

The court said that the record supported a finding that Plaintiff was terminated in good faith as it was based on Plaintiff's "declining performance evaluations and incidents of disciplinary misconduct" which the employer had documented over a period of several months.

As to Plaintiff's claim that he was terminated in retaliation for his reporting another teacher's alleged misconduct involving a student, the Appellate Division opined that this argument was speculative in light of the evidence in the record of Plaintiff's "deficient work performance and his disciplinary misconduct."

With respect to the termination of an employee before the competition of the appointee's maximum period of probation, in York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, the Court of Appeals set out the basic rule with respect to the dismissal of probationary employees. In York the high court held that "[a]fter completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law, or the decision was made in bad faith."

In the event the appointing authority decides to dismiss an employee during the minimum probationary period, the employee is entitled to the notice and hearing that would otherwise be available to a tenure employee. 

Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's decision.

 

Municipal audits released by the State Comptroller during the week ending March 26, 2021

On March 26, 2021 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government audits have been issued: 

Click on the text in color to access the full text of the audit. 

City of Johnstown – Information Technology (Fulton County)  City officials did not adequately safeguard information technology (IT) resources to ensure personal, private and sensitive information (PPSI) was protected. The failure to protect PPSI can have significant consequences on the city, such as reputation damage, lawsuits, a disruption in operations or a security breach. Auditors determined that city officials did not develop adequate IT policies and procedures or provide IT security awareness training. City officials did not have a complete and accurate IT asset inventory. They also did not properly manage user accounts or ensure unneeded administrative and user accounts were disabled. Sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to officials.

 

City of Johnstown – Financial Management (Fulton County)  City officials did not maintain accurate and complete financial information to adequately manage operations. The treasurer did not maintain accurate accounting records. The treasurer filed the required annual financial reports late for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 and did not file the reports for 2018 or 2019 as of Dec. 2, 2020. Without accurate financial records, the common council did not have accurate financial information to monitor the city’s financial condition, and does not know the city’s current financial condition. The council also did not adequately plan and monitor emergency medical services financial operations. As a result, the city could lose out on significant revenue.

###

Find out how your government money is spent at Open Book New York. Track municipal spending, the state's 180,000 contracts, billions in state payments and public authority data. Visit the Reading Room for contract FOIL requests, bid protest decisions and commonly requested data.

 

 

Determining eligibility for a two-year leave of absence on Workers' Compensation Leave as the result of an alleged assault sustained in the course of employment

§71 of the Civil Service Law, as relevant in this action, provides that in the event "an employee has been separated from the service by reason of a disability resulting from occupational injury or disease as defined in the [New York State's Workers' Compensation Law,] he or she shall be entitled to a leave of absence for at least one year, unless his or her disability is of such a nature as to permanently incapacitate him or her for the performance of the duties of his or her position."

§71 further provides that "where an employee has been separation from the service by reason of a disability resulting from an assault sustained in the course of his or her employment, he or she shall be entitled to a leave of absence for at least two years, unless his or her disability is of such a nature as to permanently incapacitate him or her for the performance of the duties of his or her position."

The employee [Plaintiff] in this CPLR Article 78 action was a correction officer and suffered injuries inflicted by a combative inmate. Plaintiff was able to work for a few days after the incident but then did not report to work, was placed on workers' compensation leave, and has since remained continuously out of work. The Appointing Authority [Employer] subsequently notified Plaintiff that her employment would be terminated* as her absence from employment at that point in time exceeded one cumulative year of absence.

Plaintiff objected to the termination and requested that she be granted a two-year leave of absence based on "the inmate's assaultive behavior." The Employer rejected Plaintiff's request and terminated. Plaintiff appealed, contending that she was entitled to a two-year leave of absence as a matter of law as she was the victim of an assault by an inmate in the course of her performing the duties of her position.

The Appellate Division's decision noted that the Employer defines the term assault as "an intentional physical act of violence directed towards an employee by an inmate or parolee." while, in contrast, Plaintiff contends the definitions of assault set forth in Penal Law §§120.00(1) and 120.0 (1), (3) and (7) should control.

Citing Morales v New York StateDept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2021 NY Slip Op 01459, the Appellate Division opined that while the record indicates that the inmate was combative and struck another correction officer, there is no indication that Plaintiff's injury resulted from the inmate's "intentional physical act of violence directed towards [her]".

Under the facts presented, the Appellate Division said it concluded that the Employer's determination was not arbitrary and capricious or irrational and sustained the Employer's determination.

* A termination pursuant to §71 is not pejorative as the individual may, within one year after the termination of the disability, apply to the civil service commission having jurisdiction for a medical examination and if certified as physically and mentally fit to perform the duties of his or her former position, he or she is be reinstated to his or her former position, if vacant, or to a vacancy in a similar position or a position in a lower grade in the same occupational field, or to a vacant position for which he or she was eligible for transfer. If no appropriate vacancy which reinstatement may be made is available, the name of individual is placed on a preferred list and he or she is eligible for reinstatement from such preferred list for a period of four years.

Click HERE to access the full text of the Appellate Division's decision.

 

Determining a reasonable disciplinary penalty to be imposed on the employee "under the circumstances"

The petitioner [Plaintiff] in this CPLR Article 78 action challenging his termination from his position after being found guilty of disciplinary charges brought against him alleging "gross misconduct-falsification of business records." The Appellate Division, after granting Plaintiff's petition to review the penalty imposed by the Employer [Appointing Authority], remitted the matter to the Appointing Authority for the imposition of a lesser penalty.*

The Appointing Authority did, in fact, imposed a lesser penalty: demotion to a lower grade position. Plaintiff sought review of this new penalty. 

Supreme Court vacated the penalty of demotion and imposed a still lesser disciplinary penalty, a 30-day suspension without pay. Supreme Court further directed that Plaintiff "be restored to his prior position" and remitted the matter to the Appointing Authority to calculate the "back salary and lost compensation" owed to the Plaintiff. The Appointing Authority appealed the Supreme Court's ruling to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division, citing Matter of Waldren v Town of Islip, 6 NY3d 735 and other court decisions, explained that an "administrative penalty must be sustained unless it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law." 

The court then opined that an administrative penalty is shocking to one's sense of fairness "if the sanction imposed is so grave in its impact on the individual subject to it that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, incompetence, failure, or turpitude of the individual, or to the harm or risk of harm to the agency or institution, or to the public generally visited or threatened by the dereliction of the individual."

Sustaining the Supreme Court determination that the new penalty imposed by the Appointing Authority "was again shocking to one's sense of fairness," the Appellate Division observed that "[t]he penalty of demotion by four salary grades, resulting in an approximate 37% decrease in salary, was so grave in its impact on the [Plaintiff] that it was disproportionate to the misconduct" involved.

In mitigation of imposing the penalty of demotion the court opined that Plaintiff, "had never, in his more than 20-year career with the [agency], been subject to discipline before he was found guilty of the instant offense, and had received positive work performance reviews." In addition, the Appellate Division noted that the Plaintiff was in poor health "when he committed the subject act of misconduct."

Under the particular circumstances of this case, however, the Appellate Division ruled that the reduced penalty imposed by the Supreme Court "was inadequate to address the gravity of the [Plaintiff's] misconduct and the resulting harm to the appellants and the public." Vacating the imposition of a penalty of a 30-day suspension without pay, the Appellate Division remitted the matter to the Appointing Authority "for the imposition of a penalty of one-year suspension without pay."

* See Matter of Sullivan v County of Rockland, 150 AD3d 743.

Click HEREto access the text of the Appellate Division's decision in this matter.

___________________

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - A 442-page e-book 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. Click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html  for more information.