City of New York v. O'Connor

• Decision Date: 29 July 2004
• Docket Number: 2538.
• Citation: 2004 NY Slip Op 06244,780 N.Y.S.2d 590,9 A.D.3d 328
• Parties: In the Matter of CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants, v. SUSAN O'CONNOR, Respondent, et al., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

9 A.D.3d 328

780 N.Y.S.2d 590

2004 NY Slip Op 06244

In the Matter of CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants, v. SUSAN O'CONNOR, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

2538.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

July 29, 2004.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered April 16, 2002, which, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul respondent Civil Service Commission's determination reversing petitioners' revocation of the individual respondent's certification for her employment as a New York City police officer, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent O'Connor was appointed to the New York City Police Department in 1988. In 1996, O'Connor, after being evaluated by the Police Department's Early Intervention Unit (EIU) and Psychological Services Unit (PSU), was referred to Holliswood Hospital for treatment of psychological difficulties. Thereafter, O'Connor was found psychologically unfit for service and involuntarily retired with an ordinary disability pension.

As a result of O'Connor's contact with EIU, PSU and/or her treatment at Holliswood Hospital, the Police Department learned that, in 1987, prior to her appointment, O'Connor had been hospitalized for psychiatric problems. O'Connor had failed to disclose this prior hospitalization in response to inquiries seeking such information in several different forms she completed in connection with her application for appointment as a police officer. Based on O'Connor's failure to disclose her 1987 hospitalization, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), at the request of the Police Department, found that O'Connor had obtained her appointment by fraud and, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 50 (4), revoked her certification for employment as a police officer, found her unqualified for such employment, and terminated her appointment. Since O'Connor had already been retired from the service on grounds of psychological disability, the effect of DCAS's action, if upheld, would be the loss of her pension.

On O'Connor's appeal of DCAS's revocation of her certification, respondent Civil Service Commission reversed DCAS and reinstated O'Connor's original certification. The Civil Service Commission took this action based on its view that the punitive use of the information about O'Connor's 1987 hospitalization was an improper breach of the confidence in...