Grant v. Town of Lewisboro, 2013-07255

• Decision Date: 17 June 2015
• Docket Number: 2013-07255
• Citation: 129 A.D.3d 962,13 N.Y.S.3d 117,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05187
• Parties: In the Matter of Lawrence GRANT, appellant, v. TOWN OF LEWISBORO, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

129 A.D.3d 962
13 N.Y.S.3d 117
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05187

In the Matter of Lawrence GRANT, appellant
v.
TOWN OF LEWISBORO, respondent.

2013-07255

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

June 17, 2015.

13 N.Y.S.3d 117

Thomas J. Troetti, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

Gaines, Novick, Ponzini, Cossu & Vendetti, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Denise M. Cossu of counsel), for respondent.

13 N.Y.S.3d 118

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, ROBERT J. MILLER, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

Opinion

129 A.D.3d 962

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Lewisboro, effective December 31, 2011, which abolished the position of full-time parks maintenance worker, and thereupon to reinstate the petitioner to that position with back pay, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), entered May 22, 2013, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner, Lawrence Grant, was employed by the Town of Lewisboro as a maintenance repair worker. In December 2011, he was informed by letter from the Town Supervisor that his employment had been “terminated.” The petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the Town's determination terminating his employment on the ground that it violated Civil Service Law § 75, and thereupon to reinstate him to his position with back pay.

In answering the petition and submitting the administrative record, the Town produced evidence to show that the petitioner's position was abolished when the Town Board adopted the 2012 Town budget, which eliminated funding for the petitioner's position. The Town also produced the minutes of the Town Board meetings for the months leading up to that determination, which showed that budget negotiations were conducted in an attempt to reduce the Town's spending. Although the petitioner was the only active employee whose position was eliminated, the Town submitted evidence that other Town positions were reduced to part-time status, and that the position of a retiring employee also was eliminated. In reply, the petitioner argued that the Town's abolition of his position was done in bad faith in an effort to circumvent the protections of the Civil Service Law.

The Supreme Court subsequently denied the petition and

129 A.D.3d 963

dismissed the proceeding without a hearing. It held that the Town had abolished the petitioner's position, that the petitioner had failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating that the Town had acted in bad faith, and that the petitioner failed to raise a triable issue of fact requiring a hearing. The petitioner appeals. We affirm.

A public employer may abolish civil service positions to “promote efficiency and economy,” provided that the employer...