Matter of Cruz v New York City Corr.Dept.
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 3, 2016
Supreme Court, New York County
In the Matter of the Application ofDavid Cruz, Petitioner,
against
New York City Correction Department, LEWIS Z. SCHLOSSER, THE CITY OF NEW YORK CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, NANCY G. CHAFFET, CHARLES D. McFAUL, RUDY WASHINGTON, Respondents.
101549/14
Noah. A. Kinigstein, for petitioner.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel for City of New York (Kurt Rose, Assistant Corporation Counsel), for respondents.
Gerald Lebovits, J.
Petitioner, David Cruz, commenced this Article 78 proceeding against respondents, the New York City Correction Department (DOC), Lewis Z. Schlosser, Director of DOC's Applicant Investigation Unit, the City of New York Civil Service Commission (CSC), and Commissioners Nancy G. Chaffet, Charles D. Mcfaul, and Rudy Washington. Petitioner seeks to annul the CSC's determination to disqualify petitioner from appointment as a correction officer because he failed to meet the required psychological standards. Petitioner appealed[FN1] for reconsideration twice. The CSC affirmed the DOC's disqualification each time.
Respondents' disqualification of petitioner's application was neither arbitrary nor capricious. A court may annul an agency's determination only if the court finds the determination arbitrary and capricious — "without sound basis in reason and generally taken without regard to the facts." (Matter of Pell v Bd. of Educ. of Union Free Sch. Dist., 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974].) Further, appointing authorities have broad discretion in determining the fitness of law-enforcement candidates. (City of New York v New York City Civil Serv. Commn., 61 AD3d 584, 584 [1st Dept 2009].)
Pursuant to his pre-employment psychological investigation, petitioner interviewed with the DOC's Psychological Services Unit psychologist, Anna Suessbrick. Dr. Suessbrick determined that petitioner had "problematic insight and judgment, poor impulse control, inadequate job functioning, and poor interpersonal skills," as evidenced by two suspensions at work for interpersonal conflicts and "pushing matches with romantic partners." (Resp. Verified Ans., Exhibit 6). Somatic Complaints, Personality Assessment Complaints, and Personality Assessment Inventory also revealed that petitioner lacked accountability, was norm-challenging, and tended to blame others. (Id.). Dr. Suessbrick found the personality traits petitioner possessed incompatible with the unique demands of a correction officer. Respondents' decision to disqualify petitioner was reasonably supported by petitioner's responses to written questionnaires and exams and by an oral interview.
On October 8, 2014, the CSC granted petitioner's second request for reconsideration. Petitioner included a psychological evaluation from Dr. Himani Janapana, who found that petitioner did not have "antisocial attitudes and [was] not physically aggressive and instead was able to cope with stress, focus his attention, think clearly, and have respect for authority." (Resp. Verified Ans., Exhibit 24). Petitioner contends that Dr. Janapana's conclusions rebutted Dr. Suessbrick's report.
Because of its discretion, an appointing authority is "entitled to rely upon the findings of its own medical personnel." (Thomas v Straub, 29 AD3d 595, 596 [2d Dept 2006]; accord City of New York, 61 AD3d at 584].) An appointing authority may rely on its own findings even if those findings contradict those of professionals retained by the candidate. (Rivers v New York City Dept. of Sanitation, 49 AD3d 436, 436 [1st Dept 2008].) It may reject respondent's determination "where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists [w]hen a rational basis for the conclusion adopted by the [respondent] is found, the judicial function is exhausted." (Matter of Curcio v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 220 AD2d 412, 413 [2d Dept 1995].) In relying on its own doctor's evaluations, respondents' decision was neither irrational nor arbitrary. These evaluators used objective tests. (See Matter of Winnegar v County of Suffolk, 13 AD3d 382, 382 [2d Dept 2004].)
Respondents relied on the medical opinions of the DOC's doctors: Dr. Suessbrick, Dr. David Safran, and Dr. Schlosser,[FN2] all of whom concluded that petitioner is psychologically unqualified to perform the essential functions of a correction officer. (Resp. Verified Ans., [*2]Exhibit 18, 22.) This determination was based on petitioner's responses and psychological assessments conducted during his evaluation. Thus, the CSC reasonably determined that Dr. Janapana's findings were not a basis to reopen or reconsider petitioner's appeal. The DOC, as an appointing agency, may rely upon its own professional findings.
Therefore, respondents' denial of petitioner's application was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that petitioner's verified petition is dismissed; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent must serve a copy of this order with notice of entry on petitioner and on the Chief Clerk's Office, which is directed to dismiss this petition.
This opinion is the court's decision and order.
Dated: May 3, 2016
J.S.C. Footnotes
Footnote 1: Respondents considered all documents received from between August 13, 2012 and August 29, 2013, on petitioner's first appeal, while the CSC determined whether petitioner timely appealed. (Resp. Mem. Supp., at. 8). The DOC's appellate process required petitioner to submit a notarized Authorization form and an evaluation from a psychiatrist or psychologist for his appeal. Petitioner failed to submit either. Thus, respondents reasonably rejected the documentation presented in the appeal and affirmed the DOC's initial determination.
Footnote 2: Dr. David Safran, Director of the Applicant Investigation Unit, and Dr. Schlosser, Director of Psychological Services, reviewed petitioner's first appeal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
