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

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Coyle v City of New York Civ. Serv. Commn. 2021 NY Slip Op 30171(U) January 21, 2021 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 156131/2020 Judge: Carol R. Edmead Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*[FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2021 12:28 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 INDEX NO. 156131/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART HON. CAROL R. EDMEAD IAS MOTION 35EFM Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X ROBERT COYLE, INDEX NO. MOTION DATE Plaintiff, 156131/2020 08/18/2020 MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -vDECISION + ORDER ON MOTION CITY OF NEW YORK CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28, 29,30, 31 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER) Upon the foregoing documents, it is ADJUDGED that the petition for relief, pursuant to CPLR Article 78, of petitioner Robert J. Coyle (motion sequence number 001) is denied; and it is further ORDERED that the cross motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211, of the respondent City of New York Civil Service Commission (motion sequence number 001) is granted, and this proceeding is dismissed; and it is further ORDERED that counsel for respondent shall serve a copy of this order, along with Notice of Entry, on all parties within twenty (20) days. 156131/2020 COYLE, ROBERT J vs. CITY OF NEW YORK CIVIL Motion No. 001 1 of 6 Page 1of6 [*[FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2021 12:28 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 P~ INDEX NO. 156131/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2021 In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner Robert J. Coyle (Coyle) seeks a judgment to overturn an order of the respondent City of New York Civil Service Commission (CSC) that upheld a decision by the non-party New York City Police Department (NYPD) to disqualify Coyle from employment, and the CSC cross-moves to dismiss Coyle's petition (together, motion sequence number 001). For the following reasons, the petition is denied, the cross motion is granted, and this proceeding is dismissed. FACTS Coyle is an applicant for employment with the NYPD. In September 2014, Coyle took Civil Service Examination Number 5306 to apply for a position as an NYPD Police Officer, and was later assigned number 469 on the list of passing applicants. See verified petition, exhibit B. Pursuant to the terms of the "notice of examination" (NOE) for exam number 5306, the NYPD subsequently conducted a "character and background" investigation into Coyle. See notice of cross motion, exhibit 17. That investigation disclosed information on Coyle's arrest record and driving record which the NYPD determined disqualified him from employment as a police officer on character grounds. Id., exhibits 3, 11-16. As a result, on June 25, 2019, the NYPD sent Coyle a "notice of proposed disqualification" indicating that it had found him unqualified for the position of police officer, and inviting him to submit further documentation to the NYPD's Character Assessment Division to challenge his disqualification. Id., exhibit 8. Coyle did so; however, on July 31, 2019, the NYPD nevertheless issued a "notice of disqualification" that rejected Coyle's application for employment. Id., exhibits 6-7. Coyle then appealed the NYPD's notice of disqualification to the CSC on August 5, 2019, after which the CSC accepted submissions from both Coyle and the NYPD. Id., exhibits 2-5. On February 21, 2020, the CSC 156131/2020 COYLE, ROBERT J vs. CITY OF NEW YORK CIVIL Motion No. 001 2 of 6 Page 2 of 6 [*[FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2021 12:28 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 P~ INDEX NO. 156131/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2021 issued a decision that denied Coyle's administrative appeal and upheld his disqualification (the CSC decision). Id., exhibit 1. The CSC decision stated as follows: "[Coyle] ('Appellant') appealed from a determination of the [NYPD] finding Appellant not qualified for the position of Police Officer, Exam No. 5306, for failure to establish the requisite character for the position as outlined in the [NOE]. Appellant appealed the disqualification to the [CSC] on August 5, 2019, and NYPD submitted its report articulating the basis of its determination on October 25, 2019. "The [CSC] has carefully reviewed the entire record and considered the arguments presented by both parties. The [CSC] incorporates [the] NYPD's October 25, 2019 report in this decision, and concludes that the record supports Appellant's disqualification. Accordingly, the determination finding Appellant disqualified is hereby affirmed." Id., exhibit 1. Coyle thereafter commenced this Article 78 proceeding on August 5, 2020. See verified petition. As was previously observed, Coyle did not include the NYPD as a respondent. Id. However, his petition did request orders that the court vacate the NYPD's notice of disqualification and that he be admitted into the next available Police Academy class, as well as awards of "back pay" and damages for "emotional distress." Id. These items may be fairly described as relief in the nature of mandamus and requests for money damages. Rather than file an answer, the CSC cross-moved to dismiss Coyle's petition on November 6, 2020. See notice of cross motion. The matter is now fully submitted (motion sequence number 001). DISCUSSION At the outset, the court notes that the CSC's first argument is that Coyle's Article 78 petition should be dismissed because he failed to join a necessary party - i.e., the NYPD - in violation of CPLR 1001. See respondent's mem of law at 11-12. This argument is not unpersuasive. See e.g., Matter of Cabrera v City ofNew York Civ. Serv. Commn., 181 AD3d 540, 541 (1st Dept 2020) (Department of Corrections [DOC] was a necessary party to an Article 78 proceeding commenced by a terminated corrections officer because "petitioner sought relief 156131/2020 COYLE, ROBERT J vs. CITY OF NEW YORK CIVIL Motion No. 001 3 of 6 Page 3 of 6 [*[FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2021 12:28 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 INDEX NO. 156131/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2021 against the DOC, and the DOC might have been inequitably affected by a judgment in the proceeding"). However, it is unnecessary for the court to reach this issue because Coyle' s petition fails on the merits against the CSC, as will be discussed below. In an Article 78 proceeding, the court's role is to determine whether the facts before the administrative agency demonstrate that a challenged agency determination had a rational basis in the record, or whether it was an arbitrary and capricious ruling. See Matter ofPell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222 (1974); Matter ofE.G.A. Assoc. v New York State Div. ofHaus. & Community Renewal, 232 AD2d 302 (1st Dept 1996). An administrative determination will only be found arbitrary and capricious if it is "without sound basis in reason, and in disregard of the facts." Matter of Century Operating Corp. v Popolizio, 60 NY2d 483, 488 (1983), citing Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d at 231. However, if there is a rational basis for the agency's determination, there can be no judicial interference. Matter ofPell v Board ofEduc. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d at 231-232. Here, the CSC decision adopted the NYPD's finding that the documentary evidence demonstrated that Coyle failed "to establish the requisite character for the position as outlined in the [NOE]." See notice of cross motion, exhibit 1. The relevant portion of the NOE provided as follows: "Character and Background: Proof of good character and satisfactory background will be absolute prerequisites to appointment. The following are among the factors which would ordinarily be cause for disqualification: (a) arrest record or conviction of an offense, the nature of which indicates lack ofgood moral character or disposition towards violence or disorder; (b) repeated arrests or convictions of an offense, where such convictions or arrests indicate a disrespect for the law; (c) discharge from employment, where such 156131/2020 COYLE, ROBERT J vs. CITY OF NEW YORK CIVIL Motion No. 001 4 of 6 Page 4 of 6 [*[FILED: 5] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2021 12:28 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 P~ INDEX NO. 156131/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2021 discharge indicates poor behavior or an inability to adjust to discipline; (d) dishonorable discharge from the Armed Forces; and (c) conviction of petit larceny. In accordance with provisions of law, persons convicted of a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor are not eligible for appointment to the title ofPolice Officer." Id., exhibit 17 (emphasis added). Coyle' s arrest record, which the CSC reviewed, disclosed that he had been arrested for: 1) domestic violence/assault on December 5, 2013; 2) improper behavior/disorderly conduct (public urination) on June 7, 2012; and 3) operation of a vehicle while in possession of a narcotic on August 26, 2008. Id., exhibit 3. The CSC decision adopted the NYPD's finding that those arrests described offenses listed in the NOE which preclude a finding of good character, and mandate that an applicant be disqualified from employment as a police officer. Id., exhibit 17. The Appellate Division, First Department, acknowledges that the CSC's broad discretion to make findings related to NYPD applicants' character, which includes the authority to disqualify applicants based on their arrest records. See e.g., Matter of Sokol v New York City Civ. Serv. Commn., 169 AD3d 552, 552-553 (1st Dept 2019), citing Matter of Smith v City of New York, 228 AD2d 381, 383 (1st Dept 1996); Matter of Carchietta v Department of Personnel of City of NY, 172 AD2d 304, 305 (I8t Dept 1991). Accordingly, the court finds that the CSC acted properly and within its legal discretion in adopting the NYPD's findings regarding Coyle' s insufficient character. The court also finds that Coyle' s arrest record afforded adequate evidentiary support for the NYPD's character findings. Neither Coyle's petition nor his reply papers explain how it was irrational to conclude from his arrest record that he had failed to satisfy the "character and background" section of the NOE. It was not irrational to do so. Instead, the court concludes that there was a rational basis in the administrative record to support the CSC decision. Consequently, the court finds that Coyle has failed to establish that the CSC decision was an arbitrary and capricious ruling, and that there are, thus, no grounds upon which to grant his Article 78 petition. Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc. of Union Free 156131/2020 COYLE, ROBERT J vs. CITY OF NEW YORK CIVIL Motion No. 001 5 of 6 Page 5 of 6 [*!FILED: 6] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2021 12 :28 PMI NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 INDEX NO. 156131/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2021 School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d at 231232. The CSC's cross motion requests the court to dismiss Coyle's petition for failure to state a cause of action, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). See respondent's mem oflaw at 12-20. Since the court has found that Coyle's petition fails as a matter of law, the court also finds that the CSC's cross motion should be granted, and that this Article 78 proceeding should be dismissed. CONCLUSION ACCORDINGLY, for the foregoing reasons it is hereby ADJUDGED that the petition for relief, pursuant to CPLR Article 78, of petitioner Robert J. Coyle (motion sequence number 001) is denied; and it is further ORDERED that the cross motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211, of the respondent City ofNew York Civil Service Commission (motion sequence number 001) is granted, and this proceeding is dismissed; and it is further ORDERED that counsel for respondent shall serve a copy of this order, along with Notice of Entry, on all parties within twenty (20) days. 1/21/2021 DATE CHECK ONE: CAROL R. EDMEAD, J.S.C. CASE DISPOSED GRANTED 0 DENIED APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN 156131/2020 COYLE, ROBERT J vs. CITY OF NEW YORK CIVIL Motion No. 001 6 of 6 ~ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT D D OTHER REFERENCE Page 6 of 6

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.