Martin v New York State Unified Ct. Sys. 2024 NY Slip Op 30472(U) February 13, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 161366/2023 Judge: Arlene P. Bluth Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 161366/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 14 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X SEAN MARTIN, INDEX NO. 161366/2023
Petitioner, MOTION DATE 02/02/2024 -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE OF THE NYS COURTS DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Respondents. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 .
The petition to annul petitioner’s disqualification from the New York State Court Officer
Trainee Program is denied.
Background
Petitioner applied to the New York State Court Officer Trainee program. In 2019, he
passed the court officer trainee examination. As part of the hiring process, petitioner was subject
to a background check in which he submitted responses to a questionnaire regarding his prior
work history, periods of unemployment, and the existence of any disciplinary complaints. After
evaluating him, respondent decided not to hire him: that decision is challenged here.
During petitioner’s evaluation, he acknowledged that he had at least 7 periods of
unemployment, four of which were for extended periods of time. Petitioner also stated that he
had a complaint from a previous employer in which he was asked to wear a mask by an
employee of a contracted client, to which he responded “let them tell me that,” (referring to the 161366/2023 MARTIN, SEAN vs. NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM ET AL Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 001
1 of 6 [* 1] INDEX NO. 161366/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
employee’s boss) and the client filed a complaint stating the response was aggressive (NYSCEF
Doc. No. 15 at 3). Additionally, petitioner admitted that for one job position, he was paid in cash
that he never reported on his taxes.
In a follow-up email, the evaluator requested more information regarding petitioner’s
prior unemployment, the client complaint, and if he was involved in any car accidents. Petitioner
responded to the email with detailed answers to each of the evaluator’s concerns.
The Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) denied petitioner’s application due to
“Continued off-the-books employment, Poor Work History, Falsification/Untruthfulness,”
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 2 at 18). Petitioner appealed and explained that any implication he was
attempting to conceal income was “a misunderstanding” and “cannot be reconciled with the
facts,” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 18 at 19). Regarding poor work history, petitioner emphasized that
he had “never been terminated from any job in [his] entire life,” (id. at 20). Petitioner also
asserted that he could not elaborate on a defense to untruthfulness as he was “uncertain of the
allegations of untruthfulness as they are not listed,” (id. at 21).
Petitioner’s appeal was subsequently denied, stating, “after reviewing your submission, it
has been determined that you are not qualified for appointment from this list for the reason[s] set
forth in the attached letter to you on 05/09/2023,” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 19).
Petitioner now brings this proceeding and contends that the determination by OCA did
not adequately explain the reasoning for petitioner’s disqualification. Petitioner further argues
that the administrative record contains no rational basis of the OCA’s determination as petitioner
provided reasonable explanations in his appeal for the denial reasons.
In opposition, respondents argue that OCA has discretion to disqualify candidates who do
not possess the requisite characteristics essential to the court officer position. Respondents
161366/2023 MARTIN, SEAN vs. NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM ET AL Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 001
2 of 6 [* 2] INDEX NO. 161366/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
contend that petitioner was disqualified from the appointment because of “deficiencies related to
his requisite personal characteristics,” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 20 at 11). According to respondents,
based on this deficiency, OCA properly exercised its discretion to disqualify petitioner.
Respondents assert that the disqualification reasons constituted enough information for petitioner
to object to his disqualification, and that petitioner’s appeal letter demonstrated that petitioner
understood the reasons for his disqualification.
In reply, petitioner contends that respondents did not disqualify petitioner based on any of
the enumerated reasons contained in the regulation that specifies grounds for disqualification.
Petitioner further asserts that the determination was made without regard to the facts, as
petitioner provided legitimate reasons for his periods of unemployment and for why he failed to
timely file a tax return for cash income. Furthermore, petitioner argues the employer complaint
made against him did not result in disciplinary action and should not be part of his court officer
trainee eligibility. Finally, petitioner argues that the evaluation report references petitioner’s
body language and incomplete forms by previous employers. Petitioner asserts neither of these
issues were indicated in the disqualification letter as being a reason for petitioner’s
disqualification.
Discussion
In an Article 78 proceeding, “the issue is whether the action taken had a rational basis
and was not arbitrary and capricious. An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken
without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts. If the determination has a rational basis, it
will be sustained, even if a different result would not be unreasonable,” (Matter of Ward v City of
Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042, 1043, 962 NYS2d 587 [2013]).
161366/2023 MARTIN, SEAN vs. NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM ET AL Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 001
3 of 6 [* 3] INDEX NO. 161366/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
“The state civil service department and municipal commissions may refuse to examine an
applicant, or after examination to certify an eligible (a) who is found to lack any of the
established requirements for admission to the examination or for appointment to the position for
which he applies. Wide discretion is afforded to civil service commissions in determining the
fitness of candidates. The exercise of that discretion is to be sustained unless it has been clearly
abused,” (Metzger v. Nassau County Civil Service Com., 54 AD2d 565, 566, 386 NYS2d 890 [2d
Dept 1976] [internal citations and quotations omitted]).
According to 22 NYCRR § 25.13 (d)(i)-(viii), an applicant may be disqualified for a
myriad of reasons, including “intentionally [making] a false statement of any material fact in his
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Martin v New York State Unified Ct. Sys. 2024 NY Slip Op 30472(U) February 13, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 161366/2023 Judge: Arlene P. Bluth Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 161366/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 14 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X SEAN MARTIN, INDEX NO. 161366/2023
Petitioner, MOTION DATE 02/02/2024 -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE OF THE NYS COURTS DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Respondents. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 .
The petition to annul petitioner’s disqualification from the New York State Court Officer
Trainee Program is denied.
Background
Petitioner applied to the New York State Court Officer Trainee program. In 2019, he
passed the court officer trainee examination. As part of the hiring process, petitioner was subject
to a background check in which he submitted responses to a questionnaire regarding his prior
work history, periods of unemployment, and the existence of any disciplinary complaints. After
evaluating him, respondent decided not to hire him: that decision is challenged here.
During petitioner’s evaluation, he acknowledged that he had at least 7 periods of
unemployment, four of which were for extended periods of time. Petitioner also stated that he
had a complaint from a previous employer in which he was asked to wear a mask by an
employee of a contracted client, to which he responded “let them tell me that,” (referring to the 161366/2023 MARTIN, SEAN vs. NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM ET AL Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 001
1 of 6 [* 1] INDEX NO. 161366/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
employee’s boss) and the client filed a complaint stating the response was aggressive (NYSCEF
Doc. No. 15 at 3). Additionally, petitioner admitted that for one job position, he was paid in cash
that he never reported on his taxes.
In a follow-up email, the evaluator requested more information regarding petitioner’s
prior unemployment, the client complaint, and if he was involved in any car accidents. Petitioner
responded to the email with detailed answers to each of the evaluator’s concerns.
The Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) denied petitioner’s application due to
“Continued off-the-books employment, Poor Work History, Falsification/Untruthfulness,”
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 2 at 18). Petitioner appealed and explained that any implication he was
attempting to conceal income was “a misunderstanding” and “cannot be reconciled with the
facts,” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 18 at 19). Regarding poor work history, petitioner emphasized that
he had “never been terminated from any job in [his] entire life,” (id. at 20). Petitioner also
asserted that he could not elaborate on a defense to untruthfulness as he was “uncertain of the
allegations of untruthfulness as they are not listed,” (id. at 21).
Petitioner’s appeal was subsequently denied, stating, “after reviewing your submission, it
has been determined that you are not qualified for appointment from this list for the reason[s] set
forth in the attached letter to you on 05/09/2023,” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 19).
Petitioner now brings this proceeding and contends that the determination by OCA did
not adequately explain the reasoning for petitioner’s disqualification. Petitioner further argues
that the administrative record contains no rational basis of the OCA’s determination as petitioner
provided reasonable explanations in his appeal for the denial reasons.
In opposition, respondents argue that OCA has discretion to disqualify candidates who do
not possess the requisite characteristics essential to the court officer position. Respondents
161366/2023 MARTIN, SEAN vs. NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM ET AL Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 001
2 of 6 [* 2] INDEX NO. 161366/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
contend that petitioner was disqualified from the appointment because of “deficiencies related to
his requisite personal characteristics,” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 20 at 11). According to respondents,
based on this deficiency, OCA properly exercised its discretion to disqualify petitioner.
Respondents assert that the disqualification reasons constituted enough information for petitioner
to object to his disqualification, and that petitioner’s appeal letter demonstrated that petitioner
understood the reasons for his disqualification.
In reply, petitioner contends that respondents did not disqualify petitioner based on any of
the enumerated reasons contained in the regulation that specifies grounds for disqualification.
Petitioner further asserts that the determination was made without regard to the facts, as
petitioner provided legitimate reasons for his periods of unemployment and for why he failed to
timely file a tax return for cash income. Furthermore, petitioner argues the employer complaint
made against him did not result in disciplinary action and should not be part of his court officer
trainee eligibility. Finally, petitioner argues that the evaluation report references petitioner’s
body language and incomplete forms by previous employers. Petitioner asserts neither of these
issues were indicated in the disqualification letter as being a reason for petitioner’s
disqualification.
Discussion
In an Article 78 proceeding, “the issue is whether the action taken had a rational basis
and was not arbitrary and capricious. An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken
without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts. If the determination has a rational basis, it
will be sustained, even if a different result would not be unreasonable,” (Matter of Ward v City of
Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042, 1043, 962 NYS2d 587 [2013]).
161366/2023 MARTIN, SEAN vs. NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM ET AL Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 001
3 of 6 [* 3] INDEX NO. 161366/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
“The state civil service department and municipal commissions may refuse to examine an
applicant, or after examination to certify an eligible (a) who is found to lack any of the
established requirements for admission to the examination or for appointment to the position for
which he applies. Wide discretion is afforded to civil service commissions in determining the
fitness of candidates. The exercise of that discretion is to be sustained unless it has been clearly
abused,” (Metzger v. Nassau County Civil Service Com., 54 AD2d 565, 566, 386 NYS2d 890 [2d
Dept 1976] [internal citations and quotations omitted]).
According to 22 NYCRR § 25.13 (d)(i)-(viii), an applicant may be disqualified for a
myriad of reasons, including “intentionally [making] a false statement of any material fact in his
or her application…practic[ing], or attempted to practice, any deception of fraud in his or her
application…lack[ing] good moral character[.]” Respondents expand on these qualifications via
an affidavit by the HR director at OCA and submission of petitioner’s evaluation report which
measure “responsibility/dependability, honest/truthfulness/integrity/morality, calmness/self-
control/self-restraint/poise/self-discipline/ability to act under stress, and emotional
maturity/emotional stability” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 11 at 8; NYSCEF Doc. No. 15 at 3-6). In
short, OCA possesses broad discretion in disqualification of applicants, and such discretion will
be sustained absent a showing of abuse (see Metzger, 54 AD2d 565).
Here, the record demonstrates that petitioner received in off-the-books payments for
which he never reported on income tax returns (id. at 4). That is, petitioner did not accurately
account for his earnings. Petitioner’s appeal indicated that he subsequently filed a tax return
soon after his disqualification in an attempt to remedy this issue. However, this type of remedial
measure is not a basis upon which this Court can conclude that respondents acted irrationally by
disqualifying petitioner in the first instance.
161366/2023 MARTIN, SEAN vs. NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM ET AL Page 4 of 6 Motion No. 001
4 of 6 [* 4] INDEX NO. 161366/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
In fact, petitioner attempted to justify his error by noting that no income was claimed
because “that is not how things are done at the company,” and suggested he did not know he had
to report this income (id.; NYSCEF Doc. No. 18 at 4). Filing an updated tax return did not
change the fact that he had not properly reported this extra income. It is not this Court’s role to
second guess OCA’s evaluation of petitioner’s failure to report this income. It is wholly rational
for OCA to conclude that an applicant who concealed the amount of money he made in a given
year is not qualified for the court officer trainee position.
Additionally, the administrative record shows that petitioner’s work history was
inconsistent. Petitioner was unemployed for sporadic periods of time, including one occasion that
lasted at least one year (NYSCEF Doc. No. 18 at 15). Petitioner requested information as to how
petitioner supported himself, to which he added that he received help from his parents,
unemployment, and savings (NYSCEF Doc. No. 15 at 7). Evidently, OCA found that the
inconsistency in petitioner’s work history did not suggest that petitioner was a suitable candidate
for the position. There is nothing in the record to suggest that OCA acted arbitrarily or
capriciously in rendering this decision as the record clearly reflects a work history that is riddled
with instances of unemployment. OCA has broad discretion in choosing the most qualified
candidates for the court officer trainee position, and there is no indication that this discretion was
abused here.
Summary
The court officer position requires applicants with the highest integrity. Court officers
possess the solemn responsibility of courthouse security; they are entrusted with government
161366/2023 MARTIN, SEAN vs. NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM ET AL Page 5 of 6 Motion No. 001
5 of 6 [* 5] INDEX NO. 161366/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
issued firearms, assist court employees and the public in cases of emergency, and protect judges.
Determining an applicant’s moral character is an imperative part of the hiring process as the
position can only be entrusted to candidates with integrity, dependability, and maturity. The
evaluation process here is meant to measure these exact qualities. Petitioner did not demonstrate
that OCA was irrational in its determination, and it is obvious to this Court that OCA relied upon
this evaluation process in making its assessment.
In short, OCA is tasked with measuring the character of an applicant to a position within
the court system. In order to exercise the extent of this responsibility, OCA must have discretion
to render decisions regarding applicants. History cannot be changed; for example, reporting prior
income earned only now, to try to clean up a problem, does not change the fact that petitioner
failed to report the income when he received it. The administrative record before this Court
shows that OCA relied on clear, documented instances of actions and behavior that OCA
believed did not correlate with the characteristics of a successful court officer trainee. That
petitioner disagrees with that assessment is not a basis for this Court to reverse OCA’s
determination.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed without costs or
disbursements.
2/13/2024 $SIG$ DATE ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART X OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
161366/2023 MARTIN, SEAN vs. NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM ET AL Page 6 of 6 Motion No. 001
6 of 6 [* 6]