Lake v. Town of Southold

Decision Date30 December 2020
Docket NumberIndex No. 5898/16,2017–11383
Citation189 A.D.3d 1588,140 N.Y.S.3d 95
Parties In the Matter of Garrett LAKE, appellant, v. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Wickham, Bressler & Geasa, P.C., Mattituck, NY (Eric J. Bressler of counsel), for appellant.

Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, NY (John M. Denby of counsel), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Southold dated May 19, 2016, which terminated the petitioner's probationary employment as a police officer, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (William G. Ford, J.), entered August 30, 2017. The judgment, upon an order of the same court dated November 17, 2016, inter alia, denying that branch of the petitioner's motion which was to compel the disclosure of certain video recordings, and upon an order of the same court dated July 17, 2017, in effect, making a summary determination pursuant to CPLR 409(b), denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the petition is reinstated, that branch of the petitioner's motion which was to compel the disclosure of certain video recordings is granted to the extent that the Town of Southold is directed to disclose all video recordings that are referenced in its answer, the order dated November 17, 2016, is modified accordingly, the order dated July 17, 2017, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The petitioner, Garrett Lake, commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town of Southold terminating his probationary employment as a police officer. In a verified petition, Lake alleged that he performed his duties as a law enforcement officer in an exemplary manner, as reflected by the numerous community policing awards that he had been nominated for during his 18–month probationary period. The petition alleged that Lake's employment was nevertheless terminated by the Town Board four days before the expiration of his probationary period, without explanation.

The petition alleged that Lake's employment was terminated in bad faith for reasons unrelated to his job performance. In particular, the petition alleged that Lake had been fired in retaliation for his refusal to give special or preferential treatment to two influential members of the community: a chief of a nearby fire department, and an individual with a close relationship to a local political party. The petition alleged that Lake's performance in arresting those two individuals—who were each involved in serious motor vehicle accidents and suspected of driving while intoxicated—had been lawful and proper in all respects, and that his employment had been terminated in bad faith. The petition noted that the termination of Lake's employment jeopardized the criminal cases that were pending against these two high-profile suspects. In addition, the petition alleged that the Town's ongoing refusal to provide any explanation for the termination of Lake's employment had prevented him from obtaining employment as a police officer outside of the Town, and "effectively ended his career in law enforcement."

The Town answered the petition and denied that Lake's employment had been terminated in bad faith. The Town asserted that Lake's employment was terminated in good faith based upon his failure to adequately perform his police duties. Specifically, the Town asserted that "complaints were made about [Lake] using questionable reasons to stop vehicles and thereafter carrying out searches of the vehicles without a sufficient reason to conduct the search." The Town asserted that these issues had been "confirmed" by the Town's Chief of Police, Martin Flatley, "who viewed hours of video of [Lake's] stops and arrest[s] and found many of them to be legally problematic."

In a verified reply, Lake disputed that any of his actions as a police officer had been improper or illegal. He contended that all of his stops and arrests had been based on probable cause, and that the Town's belated assertion that he had been fired due to poor performance was pretextual.

Lake also moved, inter alia, to compel the disclosure of the in-car video recordings that had been reviewed by Chief Flatley. The Town opposed that branch of Lake's motion, calling it "a fishing expedition." The Town argued that it was unnecessary to disclose these videos because Chief Flatley had reviewed them and "determined that the vehicular stops were not being properly made." The Town reiterated that its decision to terminate Lake's employment was proper because it was "extremely important for a police department to make sure its officers follow Constitutional mandates."

The Supreme Court directed the Town to produce a copy of the videotapes that Lake had requested for in camera review. Ultimately, after a hearing, in an order dated November 17, 2016, the court, among other things, denied that branch of Lake's motion which was to compel the disclosure of the video recordings. The court concluded that the videos were not "relevant."

In an order dated July 17, 2017, the Supreme Court, in effect, made a summary determination pursuant to CPLR 409(b), concluding that the record supported the Town's assertion that Lake's employment had been terminated due to poor performance, and that Lake failed to sustain his burden of raising a triable issue of fact as to whether his employment was terminated in bad faith. In a judgment entered August 30, 2017, the court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. We reverse.

A proceeding to challenge an administrative determination pursuant to CPLR article 78 is commenced with "a verified petition, which may be accompanied by affidavits or other written proof" ( CPLR 7804[d] ; see CPLR 402 ; cf. CPLR 105[u] ). An adverse party responds to the allegations in a petition in "a verified answer, which must state pertinent and material facts showing the grounds of the respondent's [determination]" ( CPLR 7804[d] ; see CPLR 402 ). The petitioner is permitted to "reply to new matter in the answer" ( CPLR 7804[d] ; see CPLR 402 ).

At a hearing on notice served with the petition, the parties are required to furnish to the court all of the papers that they have served (see CPLR 409[a] ; see generally Siegel & Connors, N.Y. Prac § 556 [6th ed July 2020 Update] ). Furthermore, "[t]he petitioner shall furnish all other papers not already in the possession of the court necessary to the consideration of the questions involved" ( CPLR 409[a] ). "Where such papers are in the possession of an adverse party, they shall be produced by such party" ( CPLR 409[a] ). The court may also "require the submission of additional proof" ( CPLR 409[a] ; cf. CPLR 408, 3101[a] ).

The CPLR authorizes a court to make a summary determination once the required papers have been furnished to it (see CPLR 409[b] ; see generally Siegel & Connors, N.Y. Prac. § 556). "The court shall make a summary determination upon the pleadings, papers and admissions to the extent that no triable issues of fact are raised" ( CPLR 409[b] ; see e.g. Matter of Aryeh v. St. John's Univ., 154 A.D.3d 747, 748, 63 N.Y.S.3d 393 ). In this regard, upon searching the record, "[t]he court may make any orders permitted on a motion for summary judgment" ( CPLR 409[b] ). "If triable issues of fact are raised they shall be tried forthwith and the court shall make a final determination thereon" ( CPLR 410 ; see CPLR 7804[h] ; Matter of Kickertz v. New York Univ., 25 N.Y.3d 942, 944, 6 N.Y.S.3d 546, 29 N.E.3d 893 ; see generally 3 Weinstein–Korn–Miller, N.Y. Civ Prac: CPLR ¶ 409.03 [2020] ).

As relevant here, a probationary employee may "be dismissed for almost any reason, or for no reason at all" ( Matter of Venes v. Community School Bd. of Dist. 26, 43 N.Y.2d 520, 525, 402 N.Y.S.2d 807, 373 N.E.2d 987 ; see Matter of Duncan v. Kelly, 9 N.Y.3d 1024, 1025, 853 N.Y.S.2d 260, 882 N.E.2d 872 ). However, this broad discretion is not " ‘unlimited’ " ( Matter of Maynard v. Monaghan, 284 App.Div. 280, 283, 131 N.Y.S.2d 556 ). The employment of a probationary employee may not be terminated "in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law" ( Matter of Lane v. City of New York, 92 A.D.3d 786, 786, 938 N.Y.S.2d 597 ; see Matter of Frasier v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 71 N.Y.2d 763, 765, 530 N.Y.S.2d 79, 525 N.E.2d 725 ; Matter of Miller v. Ravitch, 60 N.Y.2d 527, 531, 470 N.Y.S.2d 558, 458 N.E.2d 1235 ; Matter of Bergstein v. Board of Educ., Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Ossining, New Castle & Yorktown, 34 N.Y.2d 318, 322–323, 357 N.Y.S.2d 465, 313 N.E.2d 767 ).

In a proceeding to review a determination to terminate a probationary employee's employment, "[t]he burden of presenting legal and competent evidence to show a deprivation of petitioner's rights or bad faith or other arbitrary action ... must be borne by petitioner" ( Haberman v. Codd, 48 A.D.2d 505, 508, 370 N.Y.S.2d 118 ; see Matter of Mendez v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 28 N.Y.3d 993, 994, 41 N.Y.S.3d 208, 63 N.E.3d 1152 ; Matter of Jones v. New York City Tr. Auth., 178 A.D.3d 826, 828, 115 N.Y.S.3d 95 ). Where, upon searching the record, the parties' submissions permit the resolution of this issue as a matter of law, a summary determination is warranted (see CPLR 409[b] ; Matter of Mendez v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 28 N.Y.3d at 994, 41 N.Y.S.3d 208, 63 N.E.3d 1152 ; Matter of Anonymous v. Codd, 40 N.Y.2d 860, 861, 387 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 356 N.E.2d 475 ; Matter of Hernandez v. City of White Plains, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Alhaj v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • October 10, 2022
    ...a constitutionally impermissible or illegal purpose, or "in violation of statutory or decisional law." Mtr of Lake v. Town of Southold , 189 A.D.3d 1588, 1591, 140 N.Y.S.3d 95 (2d Dept. 2020); Mtr of Lane v. City of NY , 92 A.D.3d 786, 938 N.Y.S.2d 597 (2d Dept.2012); Card v. Sielaff , 154 ......
  • Alhaj v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • October 10, 2022
    ...... and create an abusive working environment." Chiara. v. Town of New Castle , 126 A.D.3d 111, 120 (2d Dept. 2015). . .          To the. extent ... purpose, or "in violation of statutory or decisional. law. " Mtr of Lake v. Town of Southhold, 189 A.D.3d. 1588, 1591 (2d Dept. 2020) ; Mtr of Lane v. City of. NY 92 ......
  • Weeks v. Pollina (In re Pollina)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 30, 2020
    ...was reasonably calculated to apprise the appellant of the proceeding and provide her an opportunity to be heard, personal jurisdiction 140 N.Y.S.3d 95 over the appellant was acquired in the proceeding.Accordingly, we agree with the determination of the Surrogate's Court denying the appellan......
  • O'Hara v. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 20, 2021
    ...127 A.D.3d 1083, 1084, 7 N.Y.S.3d 481 ). "However, this broad discretion is not ‘unlimited’ " ( Matter of Lake v. Town of Southold, 189 A.D.3d 1588, 1591, 140 N.Y.S.3d 95, quoting Matter of Maynard v. Monaghan, 284 App.Div. 280, 283, 131 N.Y.S.2d 556 ). "The employment of a probationary emp......
  • 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