Matter of City of New York v New York City Civ. Serv. Commn.

[*1] Matter of City of New York v New York City Civ. Serv. Commn. 2008 NY Slip Op 50826(U) [19 Misc 3d 1123(A)] Decided on March 19, 2008 Supreme Court, New York County Goodman, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 19, 2008
Supreme Court, New York County

In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Martha K. Hirst, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, and Raymond W. Kelly, as Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, Petitioners,

against

The New York City Civil Service Commission and John Doe, Respondents.



405186/07

Emily Jane Goodman, J.

The City of New York and the New York City Police Department bring this Article 78 petition against the New York City Civil Service Commission and John Doe (Doe)[FN1] seeking to reverse a determination of the Commission.

John Doe, an honorably discharged military veteran, and the son of a retired police officer, made application to join the New York Police Department (NYPD). As part of that process, all potential candidates must provide written responses to certain psychological tests and submit to psychological interviews.

Mr. Doe was found by NYPD to be psychologically unsuited for police work, and was disqualified upon a determination that he had poor interpersonal skills, paranoid thinking and suffered from anxiety. Moreover, and more specifically, a psychologist who interviewed Doe, described his thought process as, "bizarre."

A battery of standard tests was administered, and Doe's answers and scores, as interpreted by the psychologists, indicated numerous problems and potential problems including self indulgence, rejection of rules, indifference to the rights and feelings of others, and disruptive tendencies in behavior. For example, on a Police Candidate Questionnaire, Doe's responses and score were "indicative of psychological problems, including a fear of dead people," his admitted [*2]dislike for women, and his belief that "the man should be the boss of a family." Doe also defined "an enemy," as "someone who walks by you and doesn't say hello." He answered "yes," to the question of whether he would rather fight than back down in an argument, and agreed that he does not get along well with his friends, or even have any with whom he socializes. He also answered "yes" when asked "do people usually misunderstand you; do people usually pick on you; do your enemies go to great lengths to avoid you; do you always have to be on guard with friends; is the opposite sex unpleasant to you; do you believe lying is justifiable at times?"

The Civil Service Commission did not agree with the NYPD assessment of unsuitability and the rejection, noting in particular, Doe's honorable discharge from the Marines and his B average with 100 credits from Mercy College (although at the time of his testing he indicated only a high school education) neither of which are insignificant achievements, but neither of which is particularly informative here. The Commission concluded that on appeal, Doe "presented himself as a self-confident individual who is psychologically suited for the position."

The Court, in entertaining an Article 78 proceeding, cannot substitute its judgment for the agency (see Smith v City of New York, 228 AD2d 381 [1st Dept 1996]). In this case, however, the Court does find that it was arbitrary and capricious for Respondents to reject the findings of the NYPD and its psychologists, that Doe presented clear and multiple warnings that he and the public could be at risk if he were to become a police officer. The psychological make-up of police officers must, of course, always be under scrutiny. In that regard, the Court finds that it was arbitrary and capricious to ignore the applicant's own statements and answers as quoted herein. If Doe's own answers were taken into consideration, and he was not taken at his word it was irrational to discount them. If they were not taken into consideration, the decision is arbitrary and capricious. It is arbitrary and capricious to ignore and reject an applicant's own answers to pointed, relevant questions, and to instead adopt the opinion of the one psychologist retained by Doe who found him to be a suitable candidate, while rejecting the opinions of all other examining experts, and the written and oral statements by Doe himself (see City of New York v New York City Civil Service Commission, 6 NY3d 855 [2006] [Commission's determination that a police officer was mentally fit, despite evidence to the contrary, was irrational]).

Accordingly, the Petition is granted and the determination of the New York City Civil Service Commission, issued March 6, 2007, is reversed and vacated and the

determination of the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services and the New York City Police Department, finding Doe unqualified, is reinstated.

This constitutes the Decision, Order and Judgment of the Court.

Dated: March 19, 2008

ENTER:

__________________________

J.S.C. Footnotes

Footnote 1:Name of Plaintiff has been changed for publication.