Court Opinion

ID: 9962541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:10:24.6637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:01.323692
License: Public Domain

Matter of Rooney v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 31328(U)
                     April 16, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 161676/2023
                  Judge: John J. Kelley
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. 161676/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. JOHN J. KELLEY                                             PART                              56M
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          161676/2023
             In the Matter of
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         04/16/2024
             TERRENCE ROONEY,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                         Petitioner,

                                                 -v-
             CITY OF NEW YORK, HON. EDWARD A. CABAN, in his
             official capacity as the Police Commissioner of the City of                           DECISION + ORDER ON
             New York, and HON. ROSEMARIE MALDONADO, in her                                              MOTION
             official capacity as the Deputy Commissioner of Trials of
             the New York Police Department,

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
            9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,
            37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58
            were read on this motion to/for                                            ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)                .

                      This is a CPLR article 78 proceeding, pursuant to which the petitioner seeks judicial

            review of an August 2, 2023 determination of the respondent Hon. Edward A. Caban, in his

            official capacity as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, finding the petitioner guilty of

            numerous specifications set forth in several charges of misconduct that had been preferred

            against the petitioner, and thereupon terminating the petitioner’s employment with the New York

            City Police Department (NYPD). Caban’s determination was made upon the January 13, 2023

            report and recommendation of the respondent Rosemarie Maldonado, in her capacity as NYPD

            deputy commissioner, which, in turn, was made after a trial-type hearing that Maldonado

            conducted on October 27, 2022 and October 28, 2022. The petitioner contends, among other

            things, that Maldonado made errors in her fact-finding as to whether he did, in fact, commit the

            acts described in the specifications and, hence, whether he should have been found guilty of

            Specifications 1 and 3, as set forth in Case No. 2021-23895, and all of the Specifications that

             161676/2023 ROONEY, TERRENCE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                                 Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 161676/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

            were set forth in Case Nos. 2020-22445 and 2021-23062. The respondents answered the

            petition and filed the administrative record. The proceeding is transferred to the Appellate

            Division, First Department, for disposition pursuant to CPLR 7804(g).

                   Pursuant to CPLR 7803, the petitioner may challenge the respondents’ determination on

            the ground, inter alia, that it was made “as a result of a hearing held, and at which evidence was

            taken, pursuant to direction by law” (CPLR 7803[4]) and is not supported by “substantial

            evidence” (id.), and that it was “an abuse of discretion . . . as to the measure or mode of penalty

            or discipline imposed” (CPLR 7803[3]). Judicial review of the factual basis of a substantive

            administrative determination made after a trial-type hearing directed by law is limited to whether

            the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Delgrande v Greenville

            Fire Dist., 132 AD3d 987 [2d Dept 2015]; Matter of Moss Electric Air Conditioning Corp. v

            Goldin, 120 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 1986]; CPLR 7803[4]).

                   Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g),

                           “[w]here the substantial evidence issue . . . is raised, the court shall first dispose
                           of such other objections as could terminate the proceeding including, but not
                           limited to lack of jurisdiction, statute of limitations and res judicata, without
                           reaching the substantial evidence issue. If the determination of the other
                           objections does not terminate the proceeding, the court shall make an order
                           directing that it be transferred for disposition to a term of the appellate division
                           within the judicial department embracing the county in which the proceeding was
                           commenced.”

            The substantial evidence question is raised where, as here, the petitioner challenged the factual

            findings set forth in an underlying NYPD determination, made after a hearing conducted by the

            NYPD’s deputy commissioner for trials, concerning whether he engaged in certain misconduct

            described in numerous charges and specifications preferred against him (see Matter of Cyrus v

            O’Neill, 184 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2020]). Specifically, the petitioner challenges the hearing

            officer’s factual finding that he engaged in the acts described in the specifications and charges

            of which he was found guilty.

             161676/2023 ROONEY, TERRENCE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                               Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                          2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161676/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

                   Since there were no objections in point of law asserted by the respondents that would

            dispose of the proceeding prior to transfer, the matter must be transferred to the Appellate

            Division. “When the proceeding comes before it, whether by appeal or transfer the appellate

            division shall dispose of all issues in the proceeding” (CPLR 7804[g]; see Matter of Rossi v New

            York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 127 AD3d 463, 467 [1st Dept 2015]; Matter of Roberts v

            Gavin, 96 AD3d 669, 670 [1st Dept 2012]). Thus, the Appellate Division also has the authority

            to address and dispose of the petitioner’s contention that the penalty imposed by the

            respondents constituted an abuse of discretion because it was excessive and, thus, shocked

            the judicial conscience (see Matter of MVM Constr., LLC v Westchester County Solid Waste

            Commn., 112 AD3d 637, 639-640 [2d Dept 2013]).

                   The court notes that, in accordance with applicable Court rules, in order to place the

            transferred proceeding on the calendar of the Appellate Division, First Department, so that it

            may be heard, the petitioner in a transferred CPLR article 78 proceeding must “perfect” the

            transferred proceeding either,

                           (1) upon the full record reproduced (see 22 NYCRR 1250.5[b], 1250.6, 1250.7,
                               1250.9[a][1]), in which case the petitioner must, within six months of the date
                               of this order, file, with the Clerk of the Appellate Division, First Department,
                               27 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010, an original and five hard copies of
                               a reproduced full record, consisting of all papers previously filed with this
                               court in this proceeding, an original and five hard copies of a petitioner’s brief
                               explaining the reasons why he contends that the respondents’ determination
                               should be annulled, and one digital copy of the record and brief, with proof of
                               service of one hard copy of the record and brief upon each other party to the
                               appeal, or

                           (2) by the appendix method (see 22 NYCRR 1250.5[c]), or

                           (3) on the original record (see 22 NYCRR 1250.5[e]).

                   If the petitioner elects to perfect the transferred proceeding either by the appendix

            method or on the original record, he is obligated to:

                           (a) subpoena the case file from the New York County Clerk, located at 60 Centre
                               Street, Room 103B/141B, New York, NY 10007, to the Clerk of the Appellate
                               Division, First Department, 27 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010, in
                               order to permit the Appellate Division to consider the proceeding,
             161676/2023 ROONEY, TERRENCE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                               Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                          3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 161676/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

                            (b) file an original and five copies of a petitioner’s brief with the Clerk of the
                                Appellate Division, First Department, within six months of the date of this
                                order, explaining the reasons why the petitioner contends that the
                                respondents’ determination should be annulled, and

                            (c) file, with the clerk the Appellate Division, First Department, proof of service, in
                                the form of an affidavit, stating that someone on his behalf served the
                                subpoena upon the New York County Clerk (see 22 NYCRR 1250.9[a][4];
                                see also 22 NYCRR 1250.5[e][4], 1250.12[a]).

            The court further notes that forms for the necessary subpoena are available from the New York

            County Clerk’s Office, and must be filled out and delivered to the New York County Clerk, along

            with a copy of this order, before that office will transfer the case file to the Clerk of the Appellate

            Division. Should the New York County Clerk require this court to sign and “so order” the

            subpoena before he shall accept it, the petitioner shall submit a completed subpoena form

            directly to this court at 71 Thomas Street, Room 204, New York, NY 10013, or by e-mail to

            LAGOLDBE@nycourts.gov, for the Justice’s signature.

                    Accordingly, it is,

                    ORDERED that, pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), the proceeding is transferred to the

            Appellate Division, First Department, for disposition; and it is further,

                    ORDERED that the petitioner shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry upon

            the County Clerk, and, if electing to perfect the transferred proceeding using the appendix

            method or on the original record, shall also serve a completed and, if required, so-ordered

            subpoena upon the County Clerk directing the County Clerk to transfer the case file to the Clerk

            of the Appellate Division, First Department.

             161676/2023 ROONEY, TERRENCE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                 Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                            4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 161676/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/16/2024

                   This constitutes the Decision and Order of this court.

                   4/16/2024                                                           $SIG$
                     DATE                                                      JOHN J. KELLEY, J.S.C.

            CHECK ONE:              X   CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                  □
                                        GRANTED             DENIED    GRANTED IN PART              X     OTHER

            APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                  SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                  □
            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:   X   INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN    FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT              REFERENCE

            161676/2023 ROONEY, TERRENCE vs. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                    Page 5 of 5
            Motion No. 001

                                                          5 of 5
[* 5]