Opinion ID: 774990
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Preclusive Effect of the Hearing Officer's Ruling

Text: 25 Absent specific statutory guidance from Congress, the preclusive effect of prior unreviewed state administrative determinations upon a subsequent suit in federal court is a matter of federal common law. See Univ. of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 796-99 (1986) (fashioning common law rules for issue preclusion in suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). When federal common law gives preclusive effect in federal court to a state administrative determination, that prior determination has the same preclusive effect to which it would be entitled in the State's courts. Id. at 799. 26 In this case, we need not reach the issue of whether federal common law would give preclusive effect to this state administrative determination because, even if it did, the action by the hearing officer would not have preclusive effect under New York law. 3 Under New York law, a state agency determination is given preclusive effect in a subsequent state court proceedings only when, inter alia, the identical issue, see Allied Chem. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 528 N.E.2d 153, 155 (N.Y. 1988), has been decided in the prior action. Schwartz v. Public Adm'r of the Bronx, 246 N.E.2d 725, 729 (N.Y. 1969). In this case, the hearing officer's conclusion that Leventhal's Fourth Amendment rights were violated does not have preclusive effect because the issue was not decided in the agency proceeding. Leventhal and the DOT settled the disciplinary action before the hearing had concluded and the hearing officer's final recommendations had been forwarded to the DOT Commissioner for review and decision. N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law § 75(2). Even if the hearing officer were to have completed taking the evidence and had offered recommendations, only the DOT Commissioner can make the agency determination. See Simpson v. Wolansky, 343 N.E.2d 274, 276 (N.Y. 1975) ([T]he findings of the hearing officer [in a N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law § 75 proceeding] are not conclusive and may be overruled by the official upon whom has been imposed the power to remove or mete out the discipline.). Although Leventhal points to one case indicating that a hearing officer receives and rules on evidence, keeps a record of the proceeding, and makes a recommendation to the disciplinary authority, Anderson v. Dolce, 653 F. Supp. 1556, 1563 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (emphasis added), the same case notes that [t]he disciplinary authority is not bound by the hearing officer's recommendation. Id. at 1563. 27