Matter of Silverman v. Carrion

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Silverman v. Carrion

2017 NY Slip Op 273, 146 A.D.3d 570, 45 N.Y.S.3d 421

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 17, 2017

Docket2771 100167/15

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 273 (Matter of Silverman v. Carrion) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Silverman v. Carrion, 2017 NY Slip Op 273, 146 A.D.3d 570, 45 N.Y.S.3d 421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York *571 County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered July 14, 2015, inter alia, denying the petition to annul respondent’s determination, dated October 20, 2014, which sustained charges that petitioner disclosed confidential information and disobeyed supervisors’ orders, and imposed a penalty of a 23-day unpaid suspension, and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since this proceeding presents no substantial evidence question, the CPLR article 78 court correctly declined to transfer it to this Court (see CPLR 7803 [4]).

The determination that petitioner was insubordinate is rationally based in the record and not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Baker v Mahon, 72 AD3d 811 [2d Dept 2010]; CPLR 7803 [3]). It is undisputed that petitioner walked out of a performance evaluation meeting, in open disregard of her supervisors’ admonition that she stay and receive their guidance on her performance.

There is no evidence that the Administrative Law Judge’s findings (which were adopted by respondent) were rooted in bias. The determination that petitioner disclosed confidential information is rationally based in the record, which shows that petitioner copied her personal attorney on an email disclosing confidential information about children under her care at a juvenile detention center, in violation of governing law (see Social Services Law § 372 [1], [4] [a]) and the agency code of conduct. Petitioner’s alleged concern about her direct supervisor’s inefficiency, based on repetitive emails requesting information that petitioner had already provided to her, does not rise to the level of a complaint about government “waste” (New York City Charter .§ 2604 [b] [4] [permitting disclosure of certain information by a public servant that she “knows or reasonably believes to involve waste, inefficiency, corruption, criminal activity or conflict of interest”]; see Munafo v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2003 WL 21799913, *8-9, 2003 US Dist LEXIS 13495, *26-28 [ED NY, Jan. 22, 2003, Nos. 98 CV-4572 (ERK), 00-CV-0134 (ERK)]). In any event, petitioner could have reported her supervisor without disclosing confidential information. Nor does the First Amendment protect the disclosure (see Jacobs v Schiffer, 204 F3d 259, 265-266 [DC Cir 2000]).

The penalty, a suspension of three days for the insubordination and 20 for the disclosure of confidential information, is not shockingly disproportionate to petitioner’s misconduct {see e.g. Matter of Waters v City of Glen Cove, 181 AD2d 783 [2d Dept 1992] [four-day suspension for insubordination]; Matter of *572 Silverstein v Goldin, 55 AD2d 561 [1st Dept 1976] [15-day suspension for insubordination notwithstanding unblemished 26-year record]; Matter of Price v Delaney, 81 AD2d 837, 837 [2d Dept 1981] [one-month suspension for disclosure of confidential information]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York *571 County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered July 14, 2015, inter alia, denying the petition to annul respondent’s determination, dated October 20, 2014, which sustained charges that petitioner disclosed confidential information and disobeyed supervisors’ orders, and imposed a penalty of a 23-day unpaid suspension, and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since this proceeding presents no substantial evidence question, the CPLR article 78 court correctly declined to transfer it to this Court (see CPLR 7803 [4]).

The determination that petitioner was insubordinate is rationally based in the record and not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Baker v Mahon, 72 AD3d 811 [2d Dept 2010]; CPLR 7803 [3]). It is undisputed that petitioner walked out of a performance evaluation meeting, in open disregard of her supervisors’ admonition that she stay and receive their guidance on her performance.

There is no evidence that the Administrative Law Judge’s findings (which were adopted by respondent) were rooted in bias. The determination that petitioner disclosed confidential information is rationally based in the record, which shows that petitioner copied her personal attorney on an email disclosing confidential information about children under her care at a juvenile detention center, in violation of governing law (see Social Services Law § 372 [1], [4] [a]) and the agency code of conduct. Petitioner’s alleged concern about her direct supervisor’s inefficiency, based on repetitive emails requesting information that petitioner had already provided to her, does not rise to the level of a complaint about government “waste” (New York City Charter .§ 2604 [b] [4] [permitting disclosure of certain information by a public servant that she “knows or reasonably believes to involve waste, inefficiency, corruption, criminal activity or conflict of interest”]; see Munafo v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2003 WL 21799913, *8-9, 2003 US Dist LEXIS 13495, *26-28 [ED NY, Jan. 22, 2003, Nos. 98 CV-4572 (ERK), 00-CV-0134 (ERK)]). In any event, petitioner could have reported her supervisor without disclosing confidential information. Nor does the First Amendment protect the disclosure (see Jacobs v Schiffer, 204 F3d 259, 265-266 [DC Cir 2000]).

The penalty, a suspension of three days for the insubordination and 20 for the disclosure of confidential information, is not shockingly disproportionate to petitioner’s misconduct {see e.g. Matter of Waters v City of Glen Cove, 181 AD2d 783 [2d Dept 1992] [four-day suspension for insubordination]; Matter of *572 Silverstein v Goldin, 55 AD2d 561 [1st Dept 1976] [15-day suspension for insubordination notwithstanding unblemished 26-year record]; Matter of Price v Delaney, 81 AD2d 837, 837 [2d Dept 1981] [one-month suspension for disclosure of confidential information]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 273, 146 A.D.3d 570, 45 N.Y.S.3d 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-silverman-v-carrion-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack