Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Reviewing the disqualification of an applicant pursuant to Civil Service Law §50.4

By Harvey Randall, Esq.

Reviewing the disqualification of an applicant pursuant to Civil Service Law §50.4
Hirst v Agrelo, Supreme Court, New York County Part 50E, Index #403004/06, Decided March 16, 2007, Judge William A. Wetzel

Martha K. Hirst, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services [CAS] sued the New York City Civil Service Commission after the Commission certified Joshua Agrelo as eligible for appointment as a police officer with the New York City Police Department.

Agrelo had been disqualified for appointment by CAS based on his arrest record. CAS concluded that Agrelo?s arrest record ?demonstrated poor judgment and blatant disregard for the law and therefore [he] lacks the moral character required to be a police officer.? The Police Department ?asserted that good moral character is a basic requirement for the position of police officer,? a view that Judge Wetzel said ?cannot be disputed.?[1]

At the §50.4 hearing, [2] Agrelo offered a ?rationale or explanation for each of the offenses? and said that he always wanted to become a police officer. The City?s Civil Service Commission, after reviewing the record and the arguments advanced by Agrelo and CAS, found that Agrelo was ?a credible and honest witness.?

Conceding that Agrelo had pled guilty to three violations but had no misdemeanor or felony convictions, the Commission concluded that he possessed the requisite character to be a New York City police officer.

While the CAS did not challenge the authority of the Civil Service Commission to review its decisions with respect to the eligibility of candidates, it argued that the Commission could only set aside CAS?s determination if it concludes that CAS?s decision was not rationale.

Judge Wetzel, agreed, reversing and setting aside the Commission?s determination that Agrelo had the required character to be a police officer. The court explained:

In this case, the [Civil Service Commission] takes no issue and indeed confirms [Agrelo?s] arrest and conviction record. While it gratuitously finds him to be credible, it fails to provide any explanation for the seemingly obvious fact that this arrest record, conceding the rationale provided by [Agrelo], does not demonstrate the requisite character to be a police officer. Credibility was not the issue. The issue was whether the undisputed facts, i.e. [Agrelo?s] actual arrests and pleas, are disqualifying, an issue not addressed by the [Commission].

_________________

[1] According to Judge Wetzel?s decision, Agrelo?s record included being arrested and charged with Patronizing a Prostitute, who was, in fact, an undercover police officer, Robbery in the Second Degree, a felony, and Assault in the Second Degree, a felony, Robbery in the Second Degree, a felony, Assault in the Second Degree, a felony, and Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree. He ultimately pled guilty to lesser offenses to three of the charges.

[2] §50.4 of the Civil Service Law provides, in pertinent part: No person shall be disqualified pursuant to this subdivision unless he has been given a written statement of the reasons therefor and afforded an opportunity to make an explanation and to submit facts in opposition to such disqualification

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on January 23, 2008 (boomark / email).