Matter of Agbai v. New York City Civ. Serv. Commn.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Agbai v. New York City Civ. Serv. Commn.

2017 NY Slip Op 3699, 150 A.D.3d 443, 51 N.Y.S.3d 867

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 9, 2017·No. 3938 101083/14·Published

Opinion

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered April 3, 2015, granting respondents’ cross motion and dismissing the CPLR article 78 petition seeking, inter alia, to vacate respondents’ determination, dated June 3, 2014, which terminated petitioner’s employment as a correction officer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*444 The determination of respondent New York City Civil Service Commission is subject to judicial review only if “the agency has acted illegally, unconstitutionally or in excess of its jurisdiction” (Matter of New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection v New York City Civ. Serv. Commn., 78 NY2d 318, 323 [1991]). The court properly rejected petitioner’s argument that the Administrative Law Judge did not have the authority and jurisdiction to conduct the subject disciplinary hearing (see e.g. Matter of Stapleton v Ponte, 138 AD3d 751 [2d Dept 2016]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or unavailing.

Concur— Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered April 3, 2015, granting respondents’ cross motion and dismissing the CPLR article 78 petition seeking, inter alia, to vacate respondents’ determination, dated June 3, 2014, which terminated petitioner’s employment as a correction officer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*444 The determination of respondent New York City Civil Service Commission is subject to judicial review only if “the agency has acted illegally, unconstitutionally or in excess of its jurisdiction” (Matter of New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection v New York City Civ. Serv. Commn., 78 NY2d 318, 323 [1991]). The court properly rejected petitioner’s argument that the Administrative Law Judge did not have the authority and jurisdiction to conduct the subject disciplinary hearing (see e.g. Matter of Stapleton v Ponte, 138 AD3d 751 [2d Dept 2016]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or unavailing.

Concur— Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Matter of Agbai v. New York City Civ. Serv. Commn., 2017 NY Slip Op 3699, 150 A.D.3d 443, 51 N.Y.S.3d 867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 3699 (Matter of Agbai v. New York City Civ. Serv. Commn.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related