In Matter of M* v. Town of Islip, M* was a five-year employee of the Town of Islip, who was terminated for misconduct and insubordination—primarily stemming from absences without leave. The dispute's procedural journey wound its way through Civil Service Law § 75, culminating in a CPLR article 78 challenge.
Following a disciplinary hearing, a hearing officer found M* guilty on all charges and recommended termination. The Town followed through with that recommendation. M* then sought judicial intervention not to relitigate the facts, but to challenge the severity of the penalty as an abuse of discretion—invoking CPLR 7803(3), which permits courts to set aside administrative actions that are arbitrary or shocking to fairness.
After the Suffolk County Supreme Court granted M*'s administrative challenge, and annulled the underlying determination, the Town argued on appeal that the case should have been transferred to the Appellate Division under CPLR 7804(g), typically triggered when substantial evidence is in dispute. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, concluded that the Supreme Court correctly retained jurisdiction, as M* did not contest the evidentiary sufficiency of the charges—only the proportionality of the punishment. This procedural distinction was pivotal.
Drawing from Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., the court reaffirmed a well-established standard: administrative sanctions may be disturbed only if they are so disproportionate to the offense that they “shock one’s sense of fairness.” This test considers not only the gravity of the misconduct, but also mitigating factors—such as the employee’s service length, potential livelihood loss, and impact on innocent dependents—so long as the offense lacks moral turpitude or egregious harm to the public.
In this case, the AD2 agreed with the court below that M*'s conduct, though blameworthy, did not rise to such a level of seriousness as to warrant the career-ending consequence of termination. His position, history of service, and the nature of the charges all weighed in favor of a more tempered disciplinary outcome. The decision to annul the penalty and remit for reassessment stands as a reminder that administrative discipline must not only be supported by evidence but also tempered by fairness.
Was the guy subordinate? Or was he just inconveniently unavailable?
# # #
DECISION