An Article 78 petitioner is not aggrieved by an administrative determination made following petitioner's default and may not seek to review such a determination

Supreme Court dismissed the Petitioner's CPLR Article 78 action seeking a review of a determination by the Commissioner of Education [Commissioner], alleging that that the penalties imposed by the Commissioner "were excessive and improper.

The Commissioner had affirmed the decision of a hearing officer that Petitioner had operated an English as a second language school without, among other things, [a] being certified; [b] employing at least one private school agent, [c] paying required fees; [d] submitting required licensure and certification paperwork; and [e] recommended certain civil penalties upon, and restitution by, Petitioner. Supreme Court dismissed the action, finding that Petitioner's default precluded review of the order* and Petitioner appealed.

The Appellate Division, affirmed the lower court's ruling, observing that Petitioner had not answered or otherwise contested the Department's charges and thereafter failed to appear at a hearing before the designated Hearing Officer and, as a result of Petitioner's failure to appear, the Hearing Officer deemed the allegations against Petitioner to be admitted and recommended the imposition of fines totaling $398,000.

The court also noted that Petitioner did not deny that it failed to answer or otherwise appear following service upon it of both the notice of charges and the notice of hearing date nor object to the Hearing Officer's report or otherwise seek to vacate its default prior to the Commissioner's issuance of the order imposing the subject fines.

Citing Matter of Matsos Contr. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Labor, 80 AD3d 924 and other court rulings, the Appellate Division observed that it is well settled that "a petitioner is not aggrieved by an administrative determination made on its default and may not seek to review such a determination."

Addressing a procedural matter, the court noted that "the fact that a determination is final for the purpose of its present execution does not mean it is final for judicial review purposes." In such situations the proper procedure for a petitioner seeking judicial review of the merits underlying an administrative default "is to apply to the agency to vacate the default by demonstrating a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim and, if unsuccessful, seek[ing] court review of the agency's denial of that application."

Considering this point, the Appellate Division rejected Petitioner's claim that "(1) Education Law §5003 expressly relieves petitioner from having to submit an application seeking to vacate its administrative default before seeking judicial review of the underlying merits or (2) that the absence of a statutory and/or regulatory procedural mechanism for seeking vacatur of an administrative default precludes the agency from otherwise entertaining such an application."

Rather, noted the Appellate Division, during oral argument counsel for [the Commissioner] conceded that the "Commissioner would readily entertain an application" by Petitioner seeking to vacate the subject default. Thus, said the court, as Petitioner has, to date, not filed an application seeking to vacate its administrative default, "we find that its petition was properly dismissed."

* Petitioner had not answered or otherwise contested the Department's charges and thereafter failed to appear at a hearing before the designated Hearing Officer. 

N. B. In contrast, with respect to disciplinary action initiated by an appointing authority charging an employee with misconduct or incompetence pursuant to law or a provision set out in a collective bargaining agreement, the general rule in such situations is that if the employee fails to appear at the disciplinary hearing, the charging party may elect to proceed but must actually hold a “hearing in absentia” and prove its allegations rather then merely impose a penalty on the individual on the theory that the employee’s failure to appear at the hearing as scheduled is, in effect, a concession of guilt.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_00016.htm

Procedural error results in the dismissal of an appeal to the Commissioner of Education

§310 of the Education Law provides for an aggrieved party filing an appeal or petition challenging an act or omission with the Commissioner of Education and the Commissioner is "authorized and required to examine and decide" issues involving, but not limited to, an act or omission at a school district meeting; by a district superintendent and other officers, and official act or decision of any officer, school authorities, or meetings concerning any other matter addressed by the Education Law.

In this appeal, a school superintendent [Petitioner] asked the Commissioner of Education to remove the president and member of the board [President] from the School Board. The Commissioner dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, explaining appeal must be rejected and the application denied because Petitioner's application failed to include proper notice to the President as required by §277.1(b) of the Commissioner’s regulations,* citing Appeal of Cea, 58 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,482 among other Decisions of the Commissioner of Education.

The notice of petition serves to alert a party to the fact that he or she is the subject of removal proceedings and a notice of petition that fails to contain the required language is fatally defective and does not secure jurisdiction over the respondent.

* See 8 NYCRR Part 877, Practice on application for removal of school officers.

The Commissioner's decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume59/d17803

Agency's alleged failure to process an employee's contract grievance does not state a claim that the union breached its duty of fair representation

PERB's ruled that petitioner [Employee] in this CPLR Article 78 action failed to state a claim of improper practices against his employer [Agency] and his employee organization [Union] based on his allegation that the Agency "did not process his grievances quickly enough." The Employee appealed but the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed PERB's determination.

Citing Civil Service Bar Association, Local 237 v City of New York, 64 NY2d 188, the Appellate Division explained that PERB had rationally found that Employee failed to allege facts that would show that his Union had engaged in arbitrary, discriminatory or bad faith conduct, which is necessary to state a claim that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation within the meaning of Article 14 or the Civil Service Law, typically referred to as the Taylor Law.

Noting that Employee had acknowledged that a Union representative had sent an email to the Agency seeking to schedule three of Employee's grievances for a "Step II hearing" with respect to Employee's primary complaint that the Agency "did not process his grievances quickly enough," the court opined that such an allegation "does not present a basis for finding that [the Union] breached its duty of fair representation." As the Employee failed to show that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation, he was precluded from litigating directly against the Agency for any alleged improper employer practice within the meaning of Civil Service Law §209-a(1).

Further, said the court, PERB "rationally concluded that [Employee's] charge failed to allege facts that would show that [the Agency] refused to process his grievances on the basis of improper motivation or discrimination. Indeed, the Appellate Division observed that "construed liberally in [Employee's] favor, the allegations in the charge are conclusory and fail to establish that PERB acted arbitrarily and capriciously in dismissing the charge."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_00065.htm