Court Opinion

ID: 9950823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 20:10:20.1585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:50.988344
License: Public Domain

Hart v Shea
               2024 NY Slip Op 30764(U)
                     March 11, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 152870/2022
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
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. 152870/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          152870/2022
                MALCOLM HART,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE        03/04/20241
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
                DERMOT F. SHEA, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
                DEPARTMENT, THE CITY OF NEW YORK
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 11, 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, 44,
            45
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       ARTICLE 78                       .

                      The petition to reinstate petitioner as a police officer for the NYPD is denied.

            Background

                      Petitioner began working for the NYPD in 2009. He admits he was first placed on

            “dismissal probation” in 2017 but argues that it expired on July 13, 2018. Petitioner then alleges

            that he was placed on this type of probation again in June 2019 and that it expired on June 13,

            2020.

                      He explains that on October 13, 2021, he was on patrol in Brooklyn when he pursued a

            vehicle that was reported stolen; he contends that one of the individuals was taken into custody

            without incident. However, petitioner argues that the driver refused to cooperate and petitioner

            was compelled to use physical force to apprehend the driver. Petitioner alleges that he was

            1
             Although this proceeding was only assigned to the undersigned on March 4, 2024, the Court recognizes that this
            proceeding was pending before different judges over the last few years. The Court apologizes on behalf of the court
            system for the lengthy delay in the resolution of this proceeding.
                152870/2022 HART, MALCOLM vs. SHEA, DERMOT F. ET AL                                                  Page 1 of 5
                Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 152870/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            served with charges regarding this incident on October 20, 2021 and that he was subsequently

            fired by the NYPD commissioner. Petitioner contends that at the time of his termination, he was

            no longer subject to dismissal probation and therefore he was entitled to a hearing concerning his

            charges.

                   Respondents offer a different view of the aforementioned events. They observe that

            petitioner previously received disciplinary charges in two separate cases. The first case involved

            multiple incidents and charges, including reporting late four times and driving a motor vehicle in

            a reckless manner on three separate occasions. Respondents contend that petitioner drove above

            the speed limit, ran several red lights and stop signs, and ignored another officer’s order to stop

            and pull over. The second case involved a single incident wherein he was charged with

            attempting to fight an on-duty supervisor. He received a hearing for both cases and received

            penalties, both of which included dismissal probation.

                   With respect to the incident that led to petitioner’s termination, respondents contend that

            petitioner used excessive force while apprehending the driver of the purportedly stolen vehicle.

            Specifically, the charges alleged that he struck the driver eight times in the head with his firearm

            after first telling a supervisor that he only used his fist. The driver needed four staples in his

            head for his injuries. Respondents argue that their Chief of Risk Management recommended that

            petitioner be fired based on his extensive disciplinary record and this incident.

                   Respondents argue that petitioner was still on dismissal probation because the one-year

            period only begins to run once an officer is returned to full duty assignment. They insist that

            modified assignments, suspensions, vacations, restricted duty, or sick days do not count towards

            satisfying the probationary period. Respondents maintain that the first period started on July 13,

            2017 but did not run out until February 24, 2021. They explain that petitioner was on modified

             152870/2022 HART, MALCOLM vs. SHEA, DERMOT F. ET AL                                     Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 152870/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            assignment and restricted duty for 953 days and took six vacation days during this time period.

            Respondents argue that petitioner was still serving his second year of dismissal probation period

            when he was dismissed in December 2021 and therefore a hearing was not necessary.

                      In reply, petitioner contends that he does not dispute that termination is authorized during

            the probationary period. He argues that while he was on restricted or modified duty, he was still

            performing law enforcement duties and so his probationary period should have run during this

            period. Petitioner maintains that respondents do not have the authority to arbitrarily stop this

            period.

            Discussion

                      In an article 78 proceeding, “the issue is whether the action taken had a rational basis and

            was not arbitrary and capricious” (Ward v City of Long Beach, 20 NY3d 1042, 1043, 962 NYS2d

            587 [2013] [internal quotations and citation omitted]). “An action is arbitrary and capricious

            when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts” (id.). “If the determination

            has a rational basis, it will be sustained, even if a different result would not be unreasonable”

            (id.). “Arbitrary action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to

            the facts” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale

            & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231, 356 NYS2d 833 [1974]).

                      While on dismissal probation, a police officer “could be terminated for virtually any

            reason or for no reason at all, with no right to challenge such termination by way of a hearing or

            otherwise, absent a showing that he was dismissed in bad faith or for an improper or

            impermissible reason” (Cipolla v Kelly, 26 AD3d 171, 812 NYS2d 462 [1st Dept 2006]).

                      In the NYPD’s disciplinary system, dismissal probation is defined as:

                      “Dismissal Probation – When a member of the service is placed on Dismissal
                      Probation as part of a disciplinary penalty, the member is dismissed from the Police

             152870/2022 HART, MALCOLM vs. SHEA, DERMOT F. ET AL                                    Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                            3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 152870/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

                     Department, and he or she acknowledges the dismissal in writing. The Department
                     delays the imposition of the dismissal for a 1-year period, during which the member
                     must complete 1 year of full-duty status in order to complete the probationary
                     period. If there is further misconduct during the probationary period, the
                     Department may summarily dismiss the member of the service without a formal
                     hearing, including for offenses that would not ordinarily result in termination for a
                     member not on Dismissal Probation” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 34 at 13).

                     Based on this provision, petitioner had to complete one year of full duty status (id.).

                     In this proceeding, the Court must first consider whether or not petitioner was still on

            dismissal probation when he was terminated. As best this Court can tell, petitioner does not

            dispute that he was assigned to modified or restricted duty following his previous disciplinary

            hearings or contest respondents’ calculation of his work assignment. Respondents included a

            dismissal probation worksheet in their papers (NYSCEF Doc. No. 36). Petitioner’s reply does

            not, for instance, offer his own calculation of the relevant time periods or offer specific rebuttals

            about this worksheet. Put another way, petitioner did not contend that respondents miscalculated

            the time he was on full duty status.

                     Instead, petitioner appears to argue that respondents have no right to define what service

            “counts” with respect to completing a probationary period. However, petitioner cites no binding

            or applicable caselaw for the proposition that the NYPD is barred from establishing its own

            disciplinary procedures. Petitioner’s citation in reply to provisions of the Administrative Code

            concerning police discipline does not evidence a basis upon which this Court can grant the

            petition. To the extent that petitioner is alleging some sort of facial or as-applied challenge to the

            NYPD Disciplinary Guide, that argument is denied as it cannot be raised for the first time in

            reply.

                     Petitioner failed to meet his burden to show that respondents’ calculation of his dismissal

            probation was improper. Nor did he establish that his firing was in bad faith. The letter from

             152870/2022 HART, MALCOLM vs. SHEA, DERMOT F. ET AL                                    Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 152870/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            Chief of Risk Management (NYSCEF Doc. No. 43), establishes a good faith basis for firing

            petitioner—namely that petitioner “displayed a pattern unbecoming of a police officer.”

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed without costs or

            disbursements.

                     3/11/2024                                                         $SIG$
                      DATE                                                     ARLENE P. BLUTH, 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

             152870/2022 HART, MALCOLM vs. SHEA, DERMOT F. ET AL                                  Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           5 of 5
[* 5]