Employment application fraud leads to disqualification for employment

Employment application fraud leads to disqualification for employment
Schindlar v Village of Lloyd Harbor, 261 AD2d 626

Providing false information in his application for appointment as a police officer resulted in Dennis Schindlar’s disqualification and removal from his position with the Village of Lloyd Harbor.

The Suffolk County Department of Civil Service, after holding a hearing, revoked the Schindlar’s certification and appointment as a police officer.

The department’s hearing officer determined that Schindlar had “perpetrated a fraud in claiming residency in the Incorporated Village of Lloyd Harbor.” Schindlar had presented evidence that he resided in Lloyd Harbor, including copies of his driver’s license and voter registration cards. There was also testimony by the owner of the property on which he allegedly resided.

Section 50.4(f) of the Civil Service Law provides for the disqualification of individuals “who has intentionally made a false statement of any material fact in his [or her] application.” A pre-disqualification hearing may be provided where appropriate, it but is not mandated by Section 50.4.

The key due process element in Section 50.4 provides that “no person shall be disqualified ... unless he [or she] has been given a written statement of the reasons ... and afforded an opportunity to make an explanation and to submit facts in opposition to such disqualification.”

The Appellate Division noted that notwithstanding such evidence submitted by Schindlar, the hearing officer “credited the persuasive documentary evidence to the contrary.” The court said that it was well established that a reviewing court may not weigh evidence or reject the choice made by the hearing officer, especially where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists.

Finding that there was substantial evidence in the record to sustain a finding that Schindlar did not in fact reside in Lloyd Harbor during the period in question, the court affirmed Schindlar’s disqualification by the department.
NYPPL

Administrator' terminated after being found guilty of ignoring the Civil Service Law with respect to the appointment of personnel

Administrator' terminated after being found guilty of ignoring the Civil Service Law with respect to the promotion of personnel
Gillen v Smithtown Library, 254 AD2d 486, Affirmed, 94 NY2d 776

An administrator who ignores the mandates of the Civil Service Law when it comes to promoting staff members places himself or herself in harms way, as the Gillen case demonstrates.

Thomas G. Gillen, director of the Smithtown Library, was terminated from his position by the Smithtown Library Board of Trustees after being found guilty of illegally promoting employees in contravention of the Civil Service Law.

The Appellate Division rejected his appeal seeking to overturn the disciplinary action taken against him. As to the penalty of termination, the court said that when considered in light of all of the circumstances of this case, dismissal “was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness,” citing the Court of Appeals ruling in Pell v Bd. of Education, 34 NY2d 222.

The ruling also noted that “a high degree of deference is to be accorded to an agency’s determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed, citing Washington v Dolce, 208 AD2d 937.

In affirming the Appellate Division’s decision, the Court of Appeals said:

"Given [Gillen's] repeated violation of the Civil Service Law, it cannot be said that the penalty imposed is 'so disproportionate to the offense ... as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222)....'

"That the Appellate Division in remanded the matter for the imposition of a new penalty after dismissing four of the charges does not change our decision. A reviewing court generally 'will not presume to determine the precise sanction to be imposed' (Harris v Mechanicville Cent. School Dist., 45 NY2d 279, 285).

"Thus, where, as here, several charges have been dismissed on appeal, an appellate court will often remit the matter for an appropriate penalty (id.; see also, Matter of Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182, 186). Our standard of review remains the same based on the charges sustained, not on those dismissed."
NYPPL

Recovering missing public funds

Recovering missing public funds
Utica Mutual Insurance Co., as the Subrogee of the Town of Sand Lake v. Laura Avery, 261 AD2d 802, motion for leave to appeal denied, 93 NY2d 818

From time to time, a public employee resigns from his or her position after some money is found to be missing. The Utica Mutual decision provides some insights as to what might follow such an event.

A State audit had revealed discrepancies in the financial records of the Town of Sand Lake’s Justice Court, including missing funds in excess of $3,000. Town officials were sufficiently convinced that the clerk of its justice court, Laura Avery, was responsible for the loss that it demanded, and received, her resignation. It later was able to ascertain the precise amount that was missing -- $3,648 -- and filed a claim with its insurance company, Utica Mutual, for the loss. Utica Mutual paid the town $3,648.

Utica, as the town’s subrogee [standing in the place of], then sued Avery to recover the money it paid to the town. Instead of filing an answer, Avery moved to dismiss Utica’s action on the ground it was untimely. A State Supreme Court judge agreed and applying the six-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213 (a),[1]), dismissed Utica Mutual’s claim as time barred.

Utica Mutual appealed and lost. The Appellate Division said that “the sole issue on this appeal is whether Supreme Court correctly determined the date on which plaintiff’s cause of action accrued.” Utica had argued that the limitations period did not begin to run until the date on which Sand Lake received the Department of Audit and Control’s official audit since prior to that date the Town’s liability for the missing funds was not fixed.

Not so, said the Appellate Division, affirming the lower court’s ruling. It said that Utica’s cause of action accrued when all events essential to the claim were present so that Utica would be entitled to judicial relief. Presumably Utica would have won its lawsuit against Avery to recover the money it had paid to Sand Lake had it filed a timely action.

The Appellate Division suggested that even a shorter statute of limitations might apply is such situations, commenting that “arguably, the mishandling of the funds in question fits the definition of conversion” [stealing] ... for which the shorter three-year Statute of Limitations of CPLR 214 (3) would apply.” However, both parties adopt the position that, in the absence of a specific Statute of Limitations for an action to recover embezzled funds, the applicable limitations period is six years pursuant to CPLR 213 (1).
NYPPL

Disciplining an employee for off-duty misconduct

Disciplining an employee for off-duty misconduct
Anderson v Safir, App. Div., 260 AD2d 179

The Commissioner of Police found that Michael Anderson and some other New York City police officers were guilty of off-duty misconduct when they “wrongfully placed civilians in fear of imminent physical injury by displaying their guns and using racial epithets.”

The Appellate Division sustained the Commissioner’s dismissing the officers, commenting that the finding of their guilt was supported by substantial evidence, including, in particular, that the officers car pool together and that one of them owned the car described with specificity to the 911 operator at the time of the incident.

Finding that there was no basis to disturb Commissioner’s findings regarding credibility concerning the complainants’ identification testimony, the court confirmed the penalty imposed -- termination.
NYPPL