Thompson v. New York City Hous. Auth.

2025 NY Slip Op 32172(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: June 17, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 160700/2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Thompson v New York City Hous. Auth. 2025 NY Slip Op 32172(U) June 17, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 160700/2024 Judge: Lyle E. Frank 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. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/17/2025 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 160700/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. LYLE E. FRANK PART 11M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 160700/2024 RANDOLPH THOMPSON MOTION DATE 11/15/2024 Petitioner, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -v- NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER) .

Upon the foregoing documents, the petition is denied.

Background

Randolph Thompson (“Petitioner”) is a bricklayer who was employed by the New York

City Housing Authority (“NYCHA” or “Respondent”) starting on May 15, 2023. His

employment was subject to a one-year probationary period, which would be extended for any

workdays missed by Petitioner. Of his four quarterly reviews during employment, two were

satisfactory and two were unsatisfactory. He received five counseling memoranda during his

time at NYCHA, for poor workmanship, misconduct, and workplace violence. On August 6,

2024, Petitioner was terminated. Petitioner was not afforded the disciplinary due process laid out

in Civil Service Law § 75, as it was Respondent’s position that Petitioner was terminated during

his extended probationary period. Petitioner brought the present Article 78 petition, seeking to

challenge his termination on the grounds that his probationary period had actually expired by the

termination date, thus requiring that Respondent comply with Civil Service Law § 75 before

termination. 160700/2024 THOMPSON, RANDOLPH vs. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 001

1 of 4 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/17/2025 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 160700/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2025

The parties dispute whether the probationary period had expired by August 6, with the

ultimate dispute arising over whether Petitioner was absent from work on certain days. Initially,

Petitioner claimed in his affidavit that he was absent no more than 30 days, and Respondent

claimed that their records showed he was absent for 59 days. After Respondents had answered,

Petitioner submitted a reply affidavit stating that he had actually been absent 52 days, thus

making his termination 4 days after the probation period had ended. He included an affirmation

from another NYCHA employee, Mr. Alex Arnold, stating that Petitioner had done work on

NYCHA sites with him on seven specific days that Respondent’s files showed Petitioner as

absent.

After oral argument was held, the parties conducted an investigation into five of the

seven disputed days and exchanged relevant information and records. Petitioner now claims that

he remembers that he did not in fact work with Mr. Arnold during two of the seven days in

question, contrary to statements in the earlier affidavits. NYCHA has payroll records indicating

that Petitioner was absent on all seven of the days, and Petitioner has photographs of work he

alleges was performed on all seven days in question.

Standard of Review

A party may bring an Article 78 petition to challenge the final determination of an

administrative agency. CPLR § 7801(1). A court must give great deference to the agency’s

decision and cannot “interfere unless there is no rational basis for the exercise of discretion or the

action complained of is arbitrary and capricious.” Pell v. Board of Education, 34 N.Y.2d 222,

231 [1974]. Judicial review is also available if the agency’s determination was “contrary to law

or procedure.” Barrett Japaning, Inc. v. Bialobroda, 190 A.D.3d 544, 545 [1st Dept. 2021]. An

action is irrational or arbitrary and capricious if “it is taken without sound basis in reason or

160700/2024 THOMPSON, RANDOLPH vs. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 001

2 of 4 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/17/2025 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 160700/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2025

regard to the facts.” Matter of A.Z. v. City Univ. of N.Y., Hunter Coll., 197 A.D.3d 1027, 1027

[1st Dept. 2021].

Discussion

A probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing unless proof is presented

that the dismissal was “for an improper reason or in bad faith.” York v. McGuire, 99 A.D.2d

1023, 1023 [1st Dept. 1984]. It is not argued that the dismissal was done in bad faith or for an

improper reason. The key dispositive issue is therefore whether Petitioner was a probationary

employee, or a permanent employee with due process rights at the time of termination. If

Petitioner was absent from work on all the days that he was marked absent in Respondent’s

records, he was a probationary employee on August 6, 2024, and therefore the decision to

terminate him was not arbitrary and capricious. If, however, Petitioner had actually worked on

three or more of the disputed days, then his probationary period had expired, and he would have

been entitled by law to certain due process procedures before termination.

Respondents have their payroll and computer records indicating that Petitioner was

absent on those days. Petitioner has photographs of work he alleges was performed on several of

those days, and changing testimony about what days he worked and if there was another

NYCHA employee with him. The Court finds that based on the above, Petitioner has not met his

burden in showing that the decision to terminate him was arbitrary, unreasonable, or contrary to

law. Accordingly, it is hereby

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied.

160700/2024 THOMPSON, RANDOLPH vs. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 001

3 of 4 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/17/2025 02:51 PM INDEX NO. 160700/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2025

6/17/2025 DATE LYLE E. FRANK, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

160700/2024 THOMPSON, RANDOLPH vs. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 001

4 of 4 [* 4]