Roberts v. Board of Collective Bargaining of the Office of Collective Bargaining

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roberts v. Board of Collective Bargaining of the Office of Collective Bargaining

90 A.D.3d 440, 934 N.Y.2d 379

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 440 (Roberts v. Board of Collective Bargaining of the Office of Collective Bargaining) 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

Roberts v. Board of Collective Bargaining of the Office of Collective Bargaining, 90 A.D.3d 440, 934 N.Y.2d 379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion court properly dismissed the petition because petitioner, Executive Director of District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, cannot challenge the penalty of dismissal, imposed on union member Zinovy Levitant, in this proceeding. Levitant’s termination from his position with the Human Resources Administration (HRA) was preceded by a February 2, 2007 Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings’ recommendation and report. Levitant’s appeal of HRA’s penalty was dismissed by the Civil Service Commission, and Levitant failed to commence an article 78 proceeding challenging that determination. “The express provisions of Civil Service Law §§ 75 and 76 limit the appealability of a final agency determination to an article 78 proceeding or an appeal to the Civil Service Commission” (City of New York v MacDonald, 239 AD2d 274, 274 [1997]).

[441]*441The motion court also properly found that the challenged January 23, 2008 decision by the Board of Collective Bargaining was not arbitrary and capricious insofar as it failed to order the rescission and expungement of Levitant’s termination (see CPLR 7803 [3]). The challenged determination only related to the improper charge of misuse of confidential information. Levitant’s termination was based on a number of sustained charges which were not found to be the product of improper anti-union practices. Thus, the Board reasonably concluded that there was no basis to order the rescission and expungement of Levitant’s termination. Reinstatement of an employee in the context of an improper practice petition before the Board is only warranted where anti-union animus was the “ ‘substantially motivating cause’ of his dismissal and not merely one of the reasons therefor” (Matter of City of Albany v Public Empl. Relations Bd., 57 AD2d 374, 376 [1977], affd 43 NY2d 954 [1978]; see also Matter of County of Nassau v State of N.Y. Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 103 AD2d 274, 279 [1984]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

The motion court properly dismissed the petition because petitioner, Executive Director of District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, cannot challenge the penalty of dismissal, imposed on union member Zinovy Levitant, in this proceeding. Levitant’s termination from his position with the Human Resources Administration (HRA) was preceded by a February 2, 2007 Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings’ recommendation and report. Levitant’s appeal of HRA’s penalty was dismissed by the Civil Service Commission, and Levitant failed to commence an article 78 proceeding challenging that determination. “The express provisions of Civil Service Law §§ 75 and 76 limit the appealability of a final agency determination to an article 78 proceeding or an appeal to the Civil Service Commission” (City of New York v MacDonald, 239 AD2d 274, 274 [1997]).

[441]*441The motion court also properly found that the challenged January 23, 2008 decision by the Board of Collective Bargaining was not arbitrary and capricious insofar as it failed to order the rescission and expungement of Levitant’s termination (see CPLR 7803 [3]). The challenged determination only related to the improper charge of misuse of confidential information. Levitant’s termination was based on a number of sustained charges which were not found to be the product of improper anti-union practices. Thus, the Board reasonably concluded that there was no basis to order the rescission and expungement of Levitant’s termination. Reinstatement of an employee in the context of an improper practice petition before the Board is only warranted where anti-union animus was the “ ‘substantially motivating cause’ of his dismissal and not merely one of the reasons therefor” (Matter of City of Albany v Public Empl. Relations Bd., 57 AD2d 374, 376 [1977], affd 43 NY2d 954 [1978]; see also Matter of County of Nassau v State of N.Y. Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 103 AD2d 274, 279 [1984]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 440, 934 N.Y.2d 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-board-of-collective-bargaining-of-the-office-of-collective-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack