Courts do not choose between differing professional opinions as that is the function of the administrative authority as long as it acts reasonably and responsibly

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 filed by a candidate for appointment as a police officer [Plaintiff] seeking judicial review of the determination of the Suffolk County Department of Civil Service [Department], affirming its earlier determination, that the Plaintiff was not qualified for employment as a police officer, Supreme Court dismiss the Plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court ruling, with costs.

Plaintiff had sought employment as a police officer with the Suffolk County Police Department. Candidates for such employment are required to undergo a background investigation and pass a psychological evaluation, among other things. Petitioner was not recommended for the position and the Civil Service Department notified Plaintiff that he had not been found qualified for the appointment. 

Plaintiff appealed the Department's determination, submitting an independent evaluation by a psychologist who disagreed with the conclusion of the Department's evaluator. Ultimately the Department concluded that there was no significant evidence to support reversing its disqualification of Plaintiff and affirmed its prior determination that the Petitioner was not qualified for employment as a police officer. 

Petitioner commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeing judicial review of the Department's determination. Suffolk County, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f), moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's petition. In an order and judgment, Supreme Court, in effect, granted the County's motion, denied the Plaintiff's petition, and dismissed the proceeding. The Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's ruling. 

The Appellate Division found that Supreme Court had properly granted the County's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition, explaining that "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". The court also observed that "So long as the administrative determination is not irrational or arbitrary and capricious, this Court will not disturb it". 

Further, opined the Appellate Division, "If a determination is rational it must be sustained even if the court concludes that another result would also have been rational" and noted that in an Article 78 proceeding, "the reviewing court may not weigh the evidence, choose between conflicting proof, or substitute its assessment of the evidence or witness credibility for that of the administrative factfinder".

Determining that the Supreme Court had properly concluded that the Department's decision disqualifying the Petitioner appoint to the position of police office was neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious, the Appellate Division stated that "In determining whether a candidate is medically qualified to serve as a police officer, the appointing agency is 'entitled to rely upon the findings of its own medical personnel, even if those findings are contrary to those of professionals retained by the candidate'".

In the words of the Appellate Division, "It is not for the courts to choose between the diverse professional opinions. That is the function of the proper department heads and as long as they act reasonably and responsibly, the courts will not interfere".

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

A writ of prohibition is available to challenge an official or an agency proceeding, or when it is about to proceed, beyond its alleged lawful jurisdiction

An employee [Employee] filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights [DHR] alleging that a member [Respondent] of the New York State Assembly discriminated against her on the basis of gender and sexually harassed her during her employment. 

DHR found probable cause to proceed to investigate Employee's complaint and then amended the Employee's discrimination complaint by adding the New York State Assembly [NYSA] as a Respondent in the DHR in its investigation of the complaint submitted by Employee.

NYSA, contending that DHR did not give NYSA "constitutional due process notice of the charges against it because there are no specific allegations of wrongdoing on its part", initiated the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking a Writ of Prohibition* barring DHR from proceeding with the Employee's discrimination claim to the extent it named the NYSA in the DHR proceeding as a Respondent. Supreme Court denied NYSA's application for the Writ of Prohibition and NYSA appealed. 

Citing Matter of Town of Huntington v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 82 NY2d 783, and other New York State court decisions, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, explaining that "The extraordinary writ of prohibition is available to address 'whether [a] body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction' ".

The Appellate Division also opined that "Prohibition will not lie where the party has access to another adequate legal remedy" and that "[E]rrors of law, which of course may be verbalized, but incorrectly, as excesses of jurisdiction or power, are not to be confused with a proper basis for using the extraordinary writ", quoting the Court of Appeals' decision in Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59.

Addressing NYSA's argument that DHR acted in excess of its jurisdiction and thus NYSA was not required to exhaust its administrative remedies, the Appellate Division said it rejected that contention because the "[remedy] for asserted error of law in the exercise of [DHR's] jurisdiction or authority lies first in administrative review and following exhaustion of that remedy in subsequent judicial review pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law", concluded that NYSA "will suffer no irreparable harm . . . by waiting to challenge [DHR's] findings, if necessary, on the merits after [DHR] investigates [the Employee's] complaint".

* A writ of prohibition is one of number of the ancient “common law” writs and is typically issued by a higher tribunal to a lower tribunal to "prohibit" the adjudication of a matter then pending before the lower tribunal on the ground that the lower tribunal "lacked jurisdiction."  Other ancients writs include a writ of mandamus, granted by a court to compel an official to perform "acts that officials are duty-bound to perform;" the writ of injunction, a judicial order preventing a public official from performing an act; the writ of "certiorari," compelling a lower court to send its record of a case to the higher tribunal for review by the higher tribunal; and the writ of “quo warranto” [by what authority do you act]. New York State's Civil Practice Law and Rules [C{LR] set out the modern equivalents of such surviving ancient writs.

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

Employee served with disciplinary charges after failing to comply with supervisor's directives

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Kevin F. Casey recommended a 24-day suspension without pay after finding that a housekeeping aide employed by the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation disobeyed orders to remove his gloves on two occasions and failed to wear his uniform shirt on four occasions

Click HERE to access Judge Casey's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State's Workers’ Comp 202 – Best Practices to Access Benefits for Workers

The New York State Office of the Advocate for Injured Workers continues its webinar series for workers and their advocates, and there is still time to register!

Workers’ Comp 202 is a deeper dive into best practices workers can use to access their workers’ compensation benefits. This presentation will cover:

• understanding labor market attachment,
• details on benefit periods and how benefit rates are calculated,
• the importance of items such as the degree of disability and the Carrier Continue Payments (CCP) order,
• how advocates can help workers and comply with privacy provisions,
• The Board’s New York Medical Treatment Guidelines, and more!

The sessions are free and there will be time for questions.

Register here

Wednesday, April 29, 2026

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Wednesday, May 27, 2026

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Wednesday, June 24, 2026

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

For more information visit the Advocate for Injured Workers section of the New York State Workers Compensation Board’s website for additional resources or call the Advocate for Injured Workers at (877) 632-4996 or email advinjwkr@wcb.ny.gov.

Having difficulties registering? 

If you are having trouble registering for or attending any of these webinars, check out these Webinar FAQs.

 

Selected Webinars scheduled for the week ending May 1, 2026

MONDAY, APRIL 27 | 10:00 AM PT, 1:00 PM ET - High-Impact AI: Powering Public Innovation with Advanced Workstations Learn how edge AI and high-performance workstations help public agencies process data faster, reduce latency and drive innovation. REGISTER

TUESDAY, APRIL 28 | 11:00 AM PT, 2:00 PM ET - Modernizing Critical Physical Infrastructure for Today's Public-Sector Demands Learn how to identify risks in aging power, rack and cooling systems and modernize physical infrastructure to improve resiliency, support cybersecurity and enable reliable service delivery. REGISTER

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29 | 11:00 AM PT, 2:00 PM ET - AI Readiness for Public Capital Programs Join this webinar to learn how to evaluate AI, ask the right vendor questions, and protect funding, data, and accountability from the start. REGISTER

THURSDAY, APRIL 30 | 10:00 AM PT, 1:00 PM ET Protecting Public Innovation: Security for Advanced Computing Workflows Explore strategies to secure high-performance computing environments while enabling innovative solutions. REGISTER