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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Veteran who served in time of war employed and characterized as an ?independent officer? held not within the ambit of §75 of the Civil Service Law

Veteran who served in time of war employed and characterized as an ?independent officer? held not within the ambit of §75 of the Civil Service Law
Matter of DiBattista v Mcdonough, 2011 NY Slip Op 00131, Appellate Division, Third Department

After the Chief of Police of the Town of Rosendale Chief of Police, Michael DiBattista, was notified by the Town Supervisor, Patrick McDonough, that he had not been reappointed to the position at the annual organizational meeting of the Town Board, DiBattista filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order reinstating him to the position of Chief of Police with back pay, longevity pay and compensatory time.

DiBattista argued that as an honorably discharged veteran of the armed services, he should not have been discharged without a hearing.*

Supreme Court determined that DiBattista was not entitled to the statutory protection because he did not hold his position as Chief of Police "by permanent appointment."

Noting that §16-3 of the Town?s Code provides that the Chief of Police "shall be appointed annually on January 1 of each year" and his or her term shall continue "until he [or she] is reappointed or succeeded," Supreme Court apparently deemed DiBattista to hold a ?term appointment? and thus ?permanent? for the purposes of the Civil Service Law only during the specified statutory term of the office.**

The Appellate Division said it agreed and affirm the lower court?s determination.

As to DiBattista?s ?permanent status? in the position, the Appellate Division ruled that that time of the Board?s action, DiBattista ?no longer held the status of an appointed official with tenure for a limited term; instead, he held his position as a holdover and was an at-will employee not entitled to the protections of Civil Service Law §75.?***

Additionally, the Appellate Division said that DiBattista ?was further excluded from the protection of Civil Service Law §75 because his position as Chief of Police was independent in nature.?

Citing Matter of Nolan v Tully, 52 AD2d 295, 297 [1976], appeal dismissed 40 NY2d 844 [1976], lv denied 40 NY2d 803 [1976], the Appellate Division explained that Civil Service Law §75(1)(b) was intended to apply only to veterans in subordinate positions and does not include those who "may be characterized as independent officers." Based on the job description for Chief of Police, the Appellate Division concluded that the position clearly requires independent judgment and initiative and thus he was an ?independent? officer.

As to DiBattista?s argument that, as a member of the Town of Rosendale Police Department, he had the right to a pretermination hearing under Town Law §155, the Appellate Division said that both Town Law §155 and Civil Service Law §75 relate to the discipline of civil service employees, they are in pari materia**** and are to be read in conjunction so that they complement one another.

However, the court explained, ?it is apparent that Town Law §155 only applies to police department members who, unlike [DiBattista], hold permanent appointments. Ruling that DiBattista did not have property interest in the position, the Appellate Division concluded that he was not entitled to the protection of Town Law §155.

* Civil Service Law §75(1)(b) provides, in pertinent part, that a person holding a position by permanent appointment or employment in the classified service ?who was honorably discharged or released under honorable circumstances from the armed forces of the United States having served therein as such member in time of war as defined in section eighty-five of this chapter? is subject to its provisions.

** Section 15.1(b) sets out another example of a statutory ?term of office? whereby ?The term of office of a [county] personnel officer shall be six years.?

*** Presumably §75 would obtain had the Town sought to remove DiBattista while he was serving as a ?one-year appointee? in contrast to his serving in a ?holdover? capacity.

**** Two laws relating to the same subject matter that must be analyzed with each other.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_00131.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on January 19, 2011 (boomark / email).