Hearsay evidence is admissible in an administrative hearing

The Plaintiff [Petitioner] in this CPLR Article 78 action was accused of leaving a 22-month-old child alone and unsupervised, outside on a playground while acting in her capacity as a day care worker at a community family development day care center. The Dutchess County Department of Community and Family Services investigated the report and thereafter determined that the report of "maltreatment" was appropriate.

Petitioner made an application to the New York State Office of Children and Family Services [OCFS] to amend the indicated report of the State Central Register from "indicated" to "unfounded" and to seal the report. OCFS denied Petitioner's application. Petitioner then commenced  an Article 78 CPLR proceeding seeking judicial review OCFS' determination.

Citing Matter of Brown v Velez, 153 AD3d 517, the Appellate Division observed that at an administrative expungement hearing to determine whether a report of child abuse or maltreatment is substantiated, the allegations in the report must be established "by a preponderance of the evidence"*.

Further, opined the court, "Judicial review of a determination that a report of child maltreatment has been substantiated is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record" noting that where substantial evidence exists, "the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, even if the court would have decided the matter differently."

Concluding that the Petitioner was one of the individuals responsible for the child at the time of the incident is supported by substantial evidence in the record, the Appellate Division opined contrary to Petitioner's contention, "the fact that the [OCFS]  determination was based, in large part, on hearsay evidence, does not require a different conclusion. Hearsay is admissible in an administrative hearing and, in this case, was sufficiently relevant and probative to support the determination".

* The preponderance of the evidence test requires that each element of the proof advanced by the charging party's "is more likely true than not."

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

 

Supreme Court correctly dismissed Plaintiff's complaint alleging age discrimination

The Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court correctly dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint alleging the New York State Insurance Fund [NYSIF] discriminated against him because of his age within meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law §296[1][a]). 

The Appellate Division opined the defendant NYSIF "proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its refusal to hire the Plaintiff for its claims services representative or underwriter trainee positions" and Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the reasons advanced by NYSIF in its defense were pretextual.

 

Ruderman v New York State Ins. Fund

2023 NY Slip Op 01974

Decided on April 18, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: April 18, 2023
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, Singh, Scarpulla, Rodriguez, JJ.

Index No. 650940/11 Appeal No. 51 Case No. 2022-03934

Irving Ruderman, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

New York State Insurance Fund, Defendant-Respondents, John/Jane Does I-XX, Defendants.

Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP, New York (Israel Klein of counsel), for appellant.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Kristin Cooper Holladay of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Latin, J.), entered March 17, 2022, which granted defendant New York State Insurance Fund's (NYSIF) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.^[FN1]

The court correctly dismissed the complaint alleging age discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296[1][a]). NYSIF proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its refusal to hire plaintiff for its claims services representative or underwriter trainee positions, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the reasons were pretextual (see Sedhom v SUNY Downstate Med. Ctr., 201 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2022]). It is undisputed that plaintiff was late for his interview, that his application was incomplete, and that his resume lacked details as to his past employment. Further, NYSIF was unable to verify plaintiff's employment with the employers that plaintiff provided. Plaintiff failed to show that any of the nondiscriminatory reasons proffered by NYSIF were "false or unworthy of belief" and that age discrimination was the real reason for its refusal to hire him (DeFreitas v Bronx Lebonon Hosp. Ctr., 168 AD3d 541, 541 [1st Dept 2019]; see also Kwong v City of New York, 204 AD3d 442, 444 [1st Dept 2022], lv dismissed 38 NY3d 1174 [2022]).

Although plaintiff's score on the New York State Professional Careers Test was higher than those of the selected candidates, state employers are not required to select the highest scoring individual, and factors outside of performance on the test may be taken into consideration in making civil service appointments (see Matter of Cassidy v Municipal Civ. Serv. Commn. of City of New Rochelle, 37 NY2d 526, 529 [1975]). Plaintiff's contention that his undergraduate degree and years of experience automatically make him more qualified than the selected candidates is unavailing, particularly in light of NYSIF's showing that other candidates were better suited for the roles based on the many factors considered.

Finally, most of NYSIF's interviewers were in plaintiff's protected class, and NYSIF ultimately selected candidates from a broad age range, including at least one candidate who was the same age as plaintiff (see Miller v News Am., 162 AD3d 422, 422 [1st Dept 2018]). These factors weigh against any inference of discrimination (see id.; see also Sedhom, 201 AD3d at 537), and undermine plaintiff's claim that the interviewers expressly told him that he would not be hired due to his age.

Plaintiff's challenges to the dismissal of his claims under the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY §8-107[1][a]) are not properly before this Court, as he had withdrawn those claims pursuant to a stipulation and filed an amended complaint asserting only causes of action under the New York State Human Rights Law (see Weinstein v City of New York, 103 AD3d 517, 517 [1st Dept 2013]). In any event, as an "instrumentality of the State," NYSIF is not subject to the provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law (Jattan v Queens Coll. Of City Univ. of N.Y., 64 AD3d 540, 542 [2d Dept 2009]; see also Ajoku v New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance, 198 AD3d 437, 437-438 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 908 [2022]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 18, 2023

Footnotes

Footnote 1: Defendants John/Jane Does I-XX have not appeared in this action or sought representation from the Attorney General. In any event, the complaint is devoid of facts attributing any discrimination to any anonymous or unnamed person. Thus, the complaint is dismissed as to John/Jane Does I-XX as well as NYSIF.

 

New York State Comptroller DiNapoli releases school and municipal audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and reports were issued were issued on April 20, 2023.

Links to material posted on the Internet highlighted in COLOR.

 

Chappaqua Central School District – Fixed Assets (Westchester County) District officials did not properly monitor and account for the district’s fixed assets. Officials maintained incomplete and inaccurate records and did not perform a physical inventory count since 2018. Of the 164 assets reviewed, 148, worth $220,708, were not recorded on the district’s original asset list and 18 assets worth $25,022 did not have asset tags, as required. Twenty-five disposed assets were not removed from the district’s original asset list. Also, officials could not determine whether four assets were disposed of (sold) or retired (obsolete). The district’s fixed asset policy did not require, and officials did not perform, a periodic inventory count or an unannounced asset count for district departments.

 

Williamsville Central School District – Financial Management (Erie County) The board and district officials did not properly manage the district’s fund balance and reserves. As a result, the district levied more taxes than needed to fund operations. The board and district officials consistently overestimated general fund appropriations from 2018-19 through 2021-22 by a total of $47 million and appropriated $22 million of fund balance that was not needed or used. Officials also adopted annual budgets during the same period that gave the impression that the district would have operating deficits totaling $38 million when it actually had operating surpluses totaling $40 million, for a difference totaling $78 million.

 

Stamford Central School District – Fund Balance Management (Delaware County) The board and district officials did not effectively manage the district’s fund balance. As a result, they were not transparent with taxpayers, and the district levied more taxes than needed to fund operations.  The board overestimated appropriations from the 2019-20 through 2021-22 fiscal years by an average of $1.4 million (14%) and planned to use fund balance to cover operating deficits when the district realized operating surpluses. Surplus fund balance exceeded the 4% statutory limit in two of the last three fiscal years by approximately $700,000 (6.8 percentage points) and $1.9 million (18.7 percentage points). Four of the district’s 11 reserves were not reasonably funded, or used to pay related expenditures, during the last three fiscal years. For example, the retirement contributions for employees reserve balance of $602,749 was sufficient to cover expenditures for five years.

 

Bayport-Bluepoint Union Free School District – Nonstudent Network User Accounts (Suffolk County) District officials did not establish adequate network controls for nonstudent user accounts to help prevent unauthorized access. As a result, the district has an increased risk of unauthorized access to and use of the district network and potential loss of important data. In addition to sensitive information technology (IT) control weaknesses that were confidentially communicated to officials, auditors found the database coordinator did not disable 281 nonstudent network user accounts that are unneeded or unnecessary to prevent unauthorized access and use.

 

Village of Suffern – Budget Review (Rockland County) Based on the results of our review, auditors found that the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the 2023-24 proposed budget were reasonable. Estimates for metered water revenues and sewer rent revenues appear overestimated and should be reviewed by the board. The village’s tentative budget includes a tax levy of $12,090,011, which is within the limit established by law.

###

Track state and local government spending at Open Book New York. Under State Comptroller DiNapoli’s open data initiative, search millions of state and local government financial records, track state contracts, and find commonly requested data.  

 

Qualified immunity claimed by governmental officials in class action brought in federal court

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for money damages for violation of a right under federal law if "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

This ruling by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, addresses claims by government officials of their "entitlement to qualified immunity" in the underlying litigation. 

Following a discussion the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity and then reviewing the plaintiff's claims of violations of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United State, the Circuit Court of Appeals:

1. Affirmed the district court's denial of the government officials' motion for judgment on the plaintiff's pleadings concerning his Fourteenth Amendment claim;

2. Reversed the district court's denial of the government officials' motion for judgment on the plaintiff's pleadings concerning his Eighth Amendment claim; and 

3. Remanded the matter to the district court "for further proceedings."

Click HERE to access the text of Circuit Court's decision posted on the Internet.

 

New Jersey may unilaterally withdraw from the New York-New Jersey Waterfront Commission Compact

The Waterfront Commission Compact established a bi-state agency known as the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor New York and New Jersey in 1953, consistent with the Compact Clause of the Constitution, pursuant to which the States delegated their sovereign authority to conduct regulatory and law-enforcement activities at the Port. 

The Compact did not address each State’s power to withdraw from the Compact. 

In 2018, New Jersey sought to unilaterally withdraw from the Compact, over New York’s opposition. New York filed a bill of complaint in the Supreme Court of the United States. 

The parties then filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, with the United States supporting New Jersey as amicus curiae.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled New Jersey may unilaterally withdraw from the Waterfront Commission Compact notwithstanding New York’s opposition.

Click HERE to access the Supreme Court's decision and the Syllabus of the ruling. 

N.B. The Syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.