State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 23, 2015 520451 

________________________________

In the Matter of MARY LAVERE

et al.,

Appellants,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JERRY BOONE, as President of

the Civil Service Commission, 

et al.,

Respondents.

________________________________

Calendar Date: May 29, 2015

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________

Lisa M. King, Public Employees Federation, Albany (Edward

J. Aluck of counsel), for appellants.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Victor

Paladino of counsel), for respondents.

__________

Clark, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McNally Jr.,

J.), entered August 28, 2014 in Albany County, which dismissed

petitioners' application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 78, to review a determination of respondent Civil Service

Commission reclassifying certain civil service job titles.

In 2011, the Department of Correctional Services and the

Division of Parole merged to create respondent Department of

Corrections and Community Supervision (see L 2011, ch 62, § 1,

part C, § 1, subpart A). Following the merger, the Department of

Corrections and Community Supervision proposed a title
-2- 520451 

restructure that, as relevant here, combined the functions and

duties of the correction counselor and facility parole officer

titles into the newly created offender rehabilitation coordinator

title series. Respondent Division of Classification and

Compensation of the Department of Civil Service (hereinafter the

Division) approved the proposed structure change. The Public

Employees Federation, AFL-CIO (hereinafter PEF) objected to the

change and, by letter to the Division, requested its rescission;

this request was denied. Thereafter, PEF administratively

appealed to respondent Civil Service Commission, which confirmed

the Division's determination and denied the appeal. Petitioners

– the president of PEF, a former correction counselor and a

facility parole officer – commenced this CPLR article 78

proceeding asserting, among other things, that the title

structure change was arbitrary, capricious, irrational and

contrary to law. Following joinder of issue and oral argument,

Supreme Court rejected petitioners' arguments and dismissed the

petition, prompting this appeal.

Civil Service Law § 118 (2) (a) empowers the director of

the Division with the authority to, among other things, "assign

uniform titles to positions that are so substantially similar in

the essential character and scope of their duties and

responsibilities and in the qualification requirements thereof

that the same descriptive title may be used to designate them"

(see Matter of Criscolo v Vagianelis, 50 AD3d 1283, 1284 [2008],

affd 12 NY3d 92 [2009]). As relevant here, a comparison of the

correction counselor and facility parole officer titles

demonstrates that the essence and scope of each position was to

prepare the inmate for successful reintegration into the

community. Specifically, the general role of a correction

counselor was to meet with inmates to identify their individual

needs, direct the inmates to appropriate programs, periodically

meet with inmates to discuss their progress, prepare special

reports on inmates and facilitate group counseling sessions. 

Meanwhile, the general role of a facility parole officer was to

prepare inmates for release to parole, postrelease supervision,

or strict and intensive supervision and treatment by performing

social work and rehabilitation counseling, identifying

appropriate treatment services for inmates with significant

problems and special needs, and advocating on behalf of inmates
-3- 520451 

needing service. Both titles required substantially similar

minimum qualifications.

Considering the foregoing in the context of our limited

standard of review requiring that we affirm a classification

determination unless it is arbitrary, capricious or afflicted by

an error of law (see Cove v Sise, 71 NY2d 910, 912 [1988]; Matter

of Brynien v New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv., 79 AD3d 1501,

1502 [2010]; Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000,

AFSCME, AFL-CIO v State Univ. of N.Y., 286 AD2d 850, 850 [2001]),

we find no reason to disturb Supreme Court's judgment. More

particularly, the substantial overlap in the duties,

responsibilities, minimum qualifications and knowledge, skills

and abilities of a correction counselor and a facility parole

officer and their shared goal of preparing inmates for

reintegration into the community provides the rational basis

necessary to support the title structure change, "even if there

are legitimate grounds for a difference of opinion" (Matter of

Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v

State of N.Y. Unified Ct. Sys., 35 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2006]; see

Matter of Grossman v Rankin, 43 NY2d 493, 505-506 [1977]). 

Petitioners' remaining contention has been examined and found to

be without merit. 

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court