James v. Hoosick Falls Cent. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 18 September 2012
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Dennis JAMES, Petitioners, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules v. HOOSICK FALLS CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, the Board of Education of the Hoosick Falls Central School District, and Kenneth A. Facin, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Schools for the Hoosick Falls Central School District, Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

950 N.Y.S.2d 897

In the Matter of the Application of Dennis JAMES, Petitioners, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
v.
HOOSICK FALLS CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, the Board of Education of the Hoosick Falls Central School District, and Kenneth A. Facin, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Schools for the Hoosick Falls Central School District, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, New York.

Sept. 18, 2012.

950 N.Y.S.2d 898

Tabner, Ryan and Keniry, LLP by William F. Ryan Jr., Esq., Albany, Attorneys for Respondents.

Gleason, Dunn, Walsh & O'Shea by Ronald G. Dunn, Esq. and Daniel A. Jacobs, Esq., Albany, Attorneys for Petitioner.

MICHAEL C. LYNCH, J.

In January 2011, petitioner was terminated from his employment as a custodian with the Hoosick Falls Central School District pursuant to the procedures set forth in Civil Service Law § 75. By Memorandum and Order dated March 29, 2012, the Appellate Division determined that the penalty of termination was "so disproportionate as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness" and "remitted [the matter] to respondents for imposition of a less severe penalty" (James v. Hoosick Falls Central School District, 93 A.D.3d 1131, 941 N.Y.S.2d 335 [2012] ).

Following the Appellate Division's Order, the respondents directed petitioner to return to work on April 9, 2012. By resolution dated April 19, 2012, the respondent Board of Education of the Hoosick Falls Central School District imposed a penalty of a fourteen month suspension and awarded back pay for a period of one month and twelve days. Now, petitioner commenced this proceeding to challenge the penalty imposed, arguing, inter alia, that the Board did not have the authority to impose a fourteen month suspension.

In relevant part, the Civil Service Law provides that where, as here, a public employer disciplines a civil servant who has earned the procedural protections set forth in the statute, the employee may be suspended for a period of up to thirty days without pay pending a hearing on the charges. Further, if after the hearing, such officer or employee is found guilty of the charges, the penalty or punishment may consist of a reprimand, a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars to be deducted from the salary or wages of such officer or employee, suspension without pay for a period not exceeding two months, demotion in grade and title, or dismissal from the service; provided, however, that the time during which an officer or employee is suspended without pay may be considered as part of the penalty.

( Civil Service Law § 75(3) [emphasis added] ).

950 N.Y.S.2d 899

A public employer may not choose to impose a penalty in excess of those defined in Civil Service Law § 75(3) (Hermance v. Pritchard, 87 A.D.2d 962, 451 N.Y.S.2d 210 [1982]; Carlstrom v. Hauser, 54 A.D.2d 705, 387 N.Y.S.2d 447 [1976] ). Under certain circumstances, a reviewing Court, should it...