In the Matter of Rounds v. Town of Vestal

Decision Date24 February 2005
Docket Number96349.
PartiesIn the Matter of KENNETH M. ROUNDS, Petitioner, v. TOWN OF VESTAL, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner seeks annulment of a Hearing Officer's determination finding him guilty of certain disciplinary charges, dismissal of all charges or, in the alternative, modification of the penalty. Respondent initially served petitioner, the Chief of Police of the Town of Vestal Police Department, with a statement of disciplinary charges pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 in April 2003. The charges included allegations that petitioner failed to supervise members of the Department in a fair and proper manner, deliberately acted to thwart the goals and policies of the Town Board, directed a sergeant to advise patrol officers that their handguns could be withdrawn from use unless they voted for a change in the leadership of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association and failed to issue newly-purchased rifles to patrol officers, thereby subjecting them and the public to an undue risk of tragic consequences. On April 30, 2003, after petitioner commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding compelling respondent to proceed under Town Law § 155, respondent served petitioner with a statement of "alternative or supplementary" charges pursuant to Town Law § 155, the substance of which was substantially the same as the previously served statement of charges. Petitioner then commenced a second CPLR article 78 proceeding, seeking dismissal of the Town Law § 155 charges for failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitations.

Supreme Court resolved both CPLR article 78 proceedings in a single decision dismissing the Civil Service Law § 75 charges and directing respondent to abide by Town Law § 155 and applicable case law if it intended to continue or recommence disciplinary proceedings, or reissue any disciplinary charges against petitioner. Thereafter, respondent passed a resolution "reconfirm[ing] and reauthoriz[ing]" the Town Law § 155 charges. A Hearing Officer ultimately found petitioner guilty of five of the charges and 30 specifications of misconduct, dismissed two charges and 43 specifications, and imposed a penalty of termination, whereupon petitioner commenced this proceeding.

Initially, we reject petitioner's argument that Supreme Court's decision dismissing all disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 should be construed as a dismissal of both the first set of charges and the separately issued second set of charges, as well. Petitioner asserts that the second set of charges was commenced under both the Town Law and the Civil Service Law because the charges were deemed "alternative or supplementary" to the Civil Service Law § 75 charges and, thus, constituted an impermissible "hybrid" proceeding under both statutes. As petitioner concedes, however, the caption of the second set of charges indicates that the charges were commenced solely pursuant to Town Law § 155. Further, both the charges and the Town Board's resolution authorizing them indicate that they were commenced in response to petitioner's assertion that the appropriate procedure for disciplinary action is contained in Town Law § 155 instead of the Civil Service Law. Contrary to petitioner's argument, the Town Board's July 7, 2003 resolution reauthorizing and reconfirming the Town Law § 155 charges and stating its intent to proceed solely and exclusively under the Town Law is not evidence idence that respondent initially intended that the second set of charges be authorized pursuant to both the Town Law and the Civil Service Law. This argument is contradicted by the language of the resolution itself, which reaffirms that the second set of charges was commenced solely pursuant to Town Law § 155. Inasmuch as the second set of charges was issued to provide an alternative basis for disciplinary action pursuant to the Town Law in the event that petitioner prevailed on his challenges to the initial Civil Service Law charges, we agree with respondent that the second set of charges is properly interpreted as authorizing a separate Town Law § 155 proceeding and, thus, the charges were not dismissed by the prior Supreme Court order.

We further reject petitioner's argument that the second set of charges was not timely. Petitioner maintains that the second set of charges did not become effective until respondent halted its effort of proceeding with any charges pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 on July 7, 2003, when it reauthorized and reconfirmed the second set of charges. Again, petitioner's argument is based on the erroneous premise that the second set of charges was commenced under both the Civil Service Law and the Town Law. As petitioner concedes, the July 7, 2003 resolution did not authorize service of a new set of disciplinary charges or the commencement of a new proceeding. It merely reaffirmed respondent's stated intention of pursuing disciplinary charges under the Town Law and, thus, it cannot be said that the July 2003 resolution purported to issue charges beyond the 60-day statute of limitations set forth in Town Law § 155.

Also lacking in merit is petitioner's alternative argument that even if the Town Law charges were commenced on April 30, 2003, they were untimely because the facts upon which the charges were based were known to respondent by February 5, 2003, when it placed him on administrative leave. Town Law § 155 provides, in relevant part, that "charges shall...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Zlotnick v. City of Saratoga Springs
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 26, 2014
    ...1212to apprise [petitioner] of the charges and enable ... her to adequately prepare a defense” (Matter of Rounds v. Town of Vestal, 15 A.D.3d 819, 822, 790 N.Y.S.2d 561 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Block v. Ambach, 73 N.Y.2d 323, 332–333, 540 N.Y.S.......
  • Young v. Vill. of Gouverneur
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 15, 2016
    ...petitioner, founded upon his false statement to the State Police, should therefore be sustained (see Matter of Rounds v. Town of Vestal, 15 A.D.3d 819, 822, 790 N.Y.S.2d 561 [2005] ). Petitioner next contends that respondent erred by accepting the Hearing Officer's findings without explanat......
  • Lory v. County of Wash.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 28, 2010
    ...were sufficiently detailed to enable petitioner to prepare an adequate and extensive defense ( see Matter of Rounds v. Town of Vestal, 15 A.D.3d 819, 822, 790 N.Y.S.2d 561 [2005] ), and any references to uncharged conduct found in the determination, including references to additional conduc......
  • Kennedy v. N.Y. State Office for People With Developmental Disabilities
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 14, 2019
    ...petitioner's attempts to explain his behavior" and his denials of guilt of the charged misconduct ( Matter of Rounds v. Town of Vestal, 15 A.D.3d 819, 822, 790 N.Y.S.2d 561 [3d Dept. 2005] ; see generally Matter of Farabell v. Town of Macedon, 62 A.D.3d 1246, 1248, 877 N.Y.S.2d 796 [4th Dep......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT