Court Opinion

ID: 9916485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:07:47.669786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:30.025706
License: Public Domain

Matter of Croghan v Adams
               2024 NY Slip Op 30008(U)
                     January 2, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157449/2022
                Judge: Nancy M. Bannon
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.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 157449/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. NANCY M. BANNON                                            PART                              42
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          157449/2022
             In the Matter of the Application of
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         05/31/2023
             ROBERT CROGHAN, BRIAN PAUL, RICHARD BROOMS,
             RUDY BOVELL, CHARLES BURGER, OLEG DYVYNSKY,                                         MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
             CHARLES FORONJY, SERGEY KOZYREV, JOHN
             MALONE, JASON ROTHMAN, MICHAEL SANTORE,
             JOSEPH VRANA, ROGER HOWARD, and NIKA JEAN

                                                         Petitioners,

             For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78,                                              DECISION, ORDER
                                                                                                       and JUDGMENT
                                                 -v-
             ERIC L ADAMS, MELANIE WHINNERY, DAWN M
             PINNOCK, YDANIS RODRIGUEZ, and RENEE CAMPION,

                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 13, 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
            were read on this motion to/for                                               JUDGMENT - DECLARATORY                   .

                                                         I.         INTRODUCTION

                      In this proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, the petitioners, employees of the
            New York City Department of Transportation under the titles of Supervisor of Traffic Device
            Maintainers (STDM) Levels II and III, along with their union, seek judicial review of the decisions
            by the respondents, the City of New York and its relevant constituent agencies, to purportedly
            remove the titles of STDM II and III from the City’s official list of “physically taxing” positions and
            to cancel salary deductions for the petitioners’ additional early retirement pension contributions
            under the physically taxing title. The petitioners seek, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the
            respondents’ actions were arbitrary and capricious and in violation of law, and an injunction
            requiring the respondents to (1) restore the titles of STDM II and III to the official list of
            physically taxing positions, (2) refrain from continuing to cancel the petitioners’ additional
            physically taxing pension contributions, and (3) retroactively collect any additional physically
            taxing pension contributions that were not collected as a result of the respondents’ challenged
            conduct. For the reasons that follow, the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.
             157449/2022 CROGHAN, ROBERT ET AL vs. ADAMS, ERIC L ET AL                                               Page 1 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 6
[* 1]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 157449/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                                               II.     BACKGROUND

                    The petitioners are thirteen employees (Individual Petitioners) of the New York City
            Department of Transportation currently holding the titles of STDM II or III, and Robert Croghan,
            the Chairperson of the Organization of Staff Analysts (OSA), the union that represents City
            employees with the titles of STDM II and III. Respondents Eric L. Adams, Melanie Whinnery,
            Dawn M. Pinnock, Ydanis Rodriguez, and Renee Campion are, respectively, the Mayor of the
            City of New York, Executive Director of the Employee Retirement System (NYCERS),
            Commissioner of the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), Commissioner of
            the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Commissioner of the Mayor’s Office of Labor
            Relations (OLR).

                    The OLR Commissioner is, among other things, responsible for maintaining the “Official
            List of Physically Taxing Positions” (the Official List), a list of municipal civil service positions
            that qualify for early retirement at the age of fifty after twenty-five years of service pursuant to
            Section 604-d(d)(2) of the Retirement and Social Security Law (RSSL). The pension fund for
            this early retirement program is administered by NYCERS, which deducts required contributions
            from enrollees’ salaries. The Official List was last updated in 2005.

                    Prior to 2012, the position of STDM did not have differentiated assignment levels.
            Employees with the title of STDM were eligible for promotion to the positions of Supervising
            Superintendent of Maintenance (SSM) Level I, and from there to SSM Level II. The STDM
            position was considered physically taxing and was included on the Official List. The positions of
            SSM I and II were not considered physically taxing and were not included on the Official List.

                    In January 2012, DCAS issued a Resolution eliminating the titles of SSM I and SSM II
            and reclassifying those positions under the STDM title, which was broad-banded into three
            assignment levels. As set forth in the Resolution’s Table of Equivalencies, the formerly singular
            role of STDM was reclassified as STDM I, and SSM I and SSM II were reclassified as STDM II
            and STDM III, respectively. The Resolution expressly stated that all persons already employed
            under the title of STDM, SSM I, or SSM II would be reclassified into the equivalent new STDM I,
            II, or III title “without further examination, with no change in duties or status and at the same
            salaries they are presently receiving” (emphasis added). DCAS also promulgated a statement
            of duties and responsibilities for the newly reclassified STDM I, II, and III positions. Notably, the

             157449/2022 CROGHAN, ROBERT ET AL vs. ADAMS, ERIC L ET AL                                 Page 2 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                            2 of 6
[* 2]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 157449/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

            duties and responsibilities for the STDM II and III positions were essentially identical, nearly to
            the word, with the duties and responsibilities of the now-eliminated SSM I and II titles.

                   The Resolution’s Table of Equivalencies indicated a title code of 90904 for all three
            reclassified STDM assignment levels, which had previously been used only for the STDM role
            but not the SSM I and II positions (these were designated by title code 91350). However, the
            City’s March 2012 motion for amendment of OSA’s bargaining unit certification to include the
            new STDM II and III roles indicated that these positions would have an alternate title code of
            9090A. Indeed, the City’s submissions demonstrate that, unlike the STDM I role, which
            continues to be designated under title code 90904, the STDM II and III positions are designated
            in the City’s payroll system under title code 9090A.

                   At some point after the 2012 reclassification, the Individual Petitioners, who previously
            held the position of STDM I, accepted promotions to the positions of STDM II or III. From the
            time they were designated as STDM I, and continuing into their new roles, NYCERS deducted
            additional contributions for physically taxing service retirement from their salaries.

                   In January 2022, petitioner Brian Paul, who was employed in the role of STDM III,
            reached out to NYCERS to ask why it was deducting additional contributions from his salary for
            the physically taxing service retirement program given his understanding that his role as an
            STDM III was not considered physically taxing. After examining its files, NYCERS determined
            that STDM III was not on the Official List and canceled petitioner Paul’s deductions for the
            program as of the next payroll date. Thereafter, NYCERS determined that there were additional
            DOT employees designated STDM II or III for whom physically taxing deductions were also
            being wrongfully made. As a result, in May 2022, NYCERS cancelled the physically taxing
            service deductions for the rest of the Individual Petitioners. Thereafter, in response to an inquiry
            from OSA regarding the status of the physically taxing classification for the STDM II and III
            roles, an OLR Assistant Commissioner clarified that the STDM II and III positions, title code
            9090A, are not on the Official List, and that the previous SSM I and II designations for these
            roles were likewise never included on the Official List.

                   The petitioners thereafter commenced this Article 78 proceeding. The petitioners claim
            that the respondents acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in violation of law when they
            purportedly removed the titles of STDM II and III from the Official List, failed to provide OSA
            statutorily required notice of their proposed action to remove the STDM II and III titles from the

             157449/2022 CROGHAN, ROBERT ET AL vs. ADAMS, ERIC L ET AL                               Page 3 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 157449/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

            Official List, and cancelled the Individual Petitioners’ physically taxing service contributions to
            the NYCERS retirement system. The respondents contend that the titles of STDM II and III
            were never included on the Official List in the first instance; that the deduction of physically
            taxing service contributions from the salaries of the Individual Petitioners after their promotion to
            STDM II or III was an administrative error; and that the cancellation of the Individual Petitioners’
            physically taxing service contributions was a statutorily required correction of said error.

                                             III.         LEGAL STANDARD

                    “In reviewing an administrative agency determination, [courts] must ascertain whether
            there is a rational basis for the action in question or whether it is arbitrary and capricious.”
            Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 (2009); see Matter of Nestle Waters N. Am.,
            Inc. v City of NY, 121 AD3d 124, 127 (1st Dept. 2014). “An action is arbitrary and capricious
            when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts.” Matter of Peckham v
            Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 (2009). “Ordinarily, courts will defer to construction given statutes
            and regulations by the agencies responsible for their administration, if said construction is not
            irrational or unreasonable.” Minton v Domb, 63 AD2d 36, 39 (1st Dept. 1978). “If a
            determination is rational it must be sustained even if the court concludes that another result
            would also have been rational.” Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve v New York
            State Adirondack Park Agency, 34 NY3d 184, 195 (2019). “The petitioner has the burden of
            establishing that the actions of the agency were arbitrary and capricious.” Royal Realty Co. v
            New York State Div. of Hous. and Community Renewal, 161 AD2d 404, 405 (1st Dept. 1990).

                                                    IV.     DISCUSSION

                    In support of the petition, the petitioners submit, inter alia, the 2012 DCAS Resolution;
            DCAS’s job description page for the STDM I, II, and III roles; the City’s motion for amendment of
            OSA’s bargaining unit certification; a copy of the Official List; an August 2013 NYCERS bulletin
            containing a copy of the Official List; the deduction cancellation letter sent by NYCERS to the
            Individual Petitioners; and the email to OSA from the Assistant Commissioner of the OLR.

                    In opposition, the respondents submit the affidavit of Brian Geller, Assistant
            Commissioner of the OLR, who avers that: the roles of STDM II and III remained non-physically
            taxing after their reclassification from the SSM I and II titles; the title code for these positions is
            9090A; neither of these positions is included on the Official List; and, because the Official List
            has not been updated since 2005, the inclusion of the STDM position (without reference to any

             157449/2022 CROGHAN, ROBERT ET AL vs. ADAMS, ERIC L ET AL                                Page 4 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                              4 of 6
[* 4]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 157449/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

            assignment levels) on the Official List is merely a vestige from before the conversion of SSM I
            and II to STDM II and III, and should therefore be understood to refer exclusively to the STDM I
            position, the equivalent of the pre-2012 STDM role. The respondents also submit the affidavit of
            Onika Williams, Deputy Director of Membership and Service of NYCERS, who avers that
            NYCERS stopped deductions from the Individual Petitioners’ salaries after verifying that Title
            Code 9090A was not on the Official List, and the affidavit of Jesus Bermudez, Jr., an employee
            of the DOT, who avers that: he was promoted from STDM to SSM I, before the 2012
            reclassification of these titles, and understood that the SSM I role was not considered physically
            taxing and was not on the Official List; that when his SSM I role was subsequently reclassified
            to STDM II he understood that his role retained its non-physically taxing status; and that it was
            common knowledge among DOT employees that a promotion from STDM I to STDM II or III
            came with the loss of physically taxing service status for purposes of the physically taxing
            retirement program. The respondents also submit a DCAS job description for the pre-2012
            SSM I and II roles; copies of the Official List from 1995, 1998, and 2005; a NYCERS call log of
            petitioner Paul’s call to inquire about his salary deduction, in which he stated that deductions
            were being taken from his salary even though he was no longer under a physically taxing title;
            and screenshots of the “job” tab in petitioner Paul’s profile in the City’s payroll system, showing
            that when he was an STDM I, his title code was 90904, but once he was promoted to STDM III,
            his title code was 9090A.

                   Based on the above submissions, the court finds that the petitioners fail to establish that
            the respondents acted arbitrarily or capriciously or in error of law in purportedly removing the
            STDM II and III titles from the Official List or in canceling the Individual Petitioners’ contributions
            to the physically taxing retirement program. See Matter of Peckham v Calogero, supra. The
            Official List does not include the titles of STDM II or III, nor does it include title code 9090A.
            Moreover, it is clear that the 2012 reclassification of the SSM I and II roles, which were not
            considered physically taxing and were never included on the Official List, into the STDM II and
            III titles, did not substantively alter these jobs such as to convert them into physically taxing
            positions. Indeed, the job descriptions for the STDM II and III positions are substantively
            identical to those of the SSM I and II roles, and the 2012 DCAS Resolution expressly states that
            the reclassification of these roles entailed no change in duties or status. Plainly, then, the
            inclusion of the STDM position (without reference to any assignment levels) on the Official List,
            which was last updated in 2005, is merely a vestige from before the 2012 reclassification, and

             157449/2022 CROGHAN, ROBERT ET AL vs. ADAMS, ERIC L ET AL                               Page 5 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                           5 of 6
[* 5]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157449/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

            must therefore be understood to refer exclusively to the STDM I position, the equivalent of the
            pre-2012 STDM role.

                    The court thus finds that the STDM II and III titles, which from their inception were not
            considered physically taxing, were never included on the Official List in the first instance; and
            the respondents therefore did not remove these positions from the Official List, let alone do so in
            a manner that was arbitrary and capricious or in violation of law. So too, the respondents did
            not fail to provide OSA statutorily required notice of their proposed action to remove the STDM II
            and III titles from the Official List, because no such removal occurred. And, because the STDM
            II and III titles were never included on the Official List, the court further finds that NYCERS did
            not act arbitrarily or capriciously or in error of law in removing the Individual Petitioners from the
            physically taxing retirement program. Indeed, NYCERS not only acted rationally in cancelling
            the Individual Petitioners’ salary deductions for physically taxing service after learning of their
            promotions into the non-physically taxing STDM II and III roles; it was statutorily required to do
            so to correct its administrative error. See New York City Administrative Code § 13-182.

                    The court has considered and rejected the petitioners’ remaining contentions.

                                               V.         CONCLUSION

                    Accordingly, and upon the foregoing papers, it is

                    ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed,
            and it is further

                    ORDERED that the Clerk of the court shall enter the judgment accordingly.

                    This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

                    1/2/2024
                                                                                 N;:u~
                                                                                  HON. NANCY M. BANNON $SIG$
                      DATE
             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

             157449/2022 CROGHAN, ROBERT ET AL vs. ADAMS, ERIC L ET AL                              Page 6 of 6
             Motion No. 001

                                                            6 of 6
[* 6]