PR~SENTt
SUPRE~1E COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEWYORK COUNTY
NON, ERIKA ki. EDWARDS
ADLER, BRiAN,
Petitioner,
Just/cc ~
NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM rind OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, Respondent.
The following papers, numbered 1 Notice of Motion! Petition! 0CC - AftidavTt~ - Exhibits Answ~r1n8 Afitthivitc Exhthts RopIyin~
““~
x
INDEX NO. MOTION DATE
MOTION 8EQ. NO.
10155312010 10/1812019
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
• were read or~Is application to/for Art. lWcross-mtn r if L ENcK~ 1,2 No(s) I ‘!
NEW’S”&~iK COu~ COur~-y CLERK
Upon the foregoing documents, the court grants Respondent New York City Office of Collective Bargaining’s (“OCB”) cross-motion to dismiss Petitioner Brian Adler’s (“Petitioner”) Article 78 Petition as against it. Additionally, the court finds that Petitioner failed to demonstrate his entitlement to the relief requested in the Petition1 so the court dismisses the Petition in its entirety as against all parties without costs or disbursements to any party. Petitioner Brian Adler, who appears prose, brought this CPLR Article 78 proceeding ngainst Respondents New York City Cmployees Relirement System (“NYCERS”) and OC~ (collectively “Respondents”) scekin~ to annul the denial of his appeal before the New York City Board of Collective Bargaining (“OCB Board”) in a Decision and Order, dated June 3, 2019, which upheld the Executive Secretary’s dismissal of Petitioner’s improper practice petition regarding his challenge to the alleged reclassification and demotion of his civil service title with itsssi~1ti AOLt!R, riwAN i’s, Nt~W YOPR Cfl’Y CM?L0YE~CC’ RETtRa~NT 5Y5TC~ Pa~a lord
~‘,o,A’I
.u~,’rts Orit in,, Lib’~iry. page 2 ~l 5
was arbitrary or capricious, or whether it was alThcted by an error of law (see CPLR § 7803[3]; Matter ofPelt vl3oardoff4uc., 34 N12d 222, 230 [1974], and Seherbyn v BOCES, 77 N.Y 2d 753, 757-758 [1991]). In reviewing an administrative agency’s determination, courts must ascertain vihether there is a r~tion& basis for the agency~s action or whether it is arbitrary and capricious in that it was without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts (Matter ofStahl York Ave. Co., LLC v City ofNew York, 162 AD3d 103, 109 [1~ Dept 2018]; Matter ofP€ll, 34 NY2d at 231). Where the agency’s determination involves factual evaluation within an area of the agency’s expertise and is amply supported by the record, the determination must be accorded great weight end judicial deference (Testwell, Inc. v .IVew York City Dept. ofBldgs., 80 AD3d 266.276 [1~ Dept 2010]). When a court reviews an agency~s determination it may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency and the court must confine itself to deciding whether the agency’s determination was rationally based (Matter ofMedical Malpractice Iris. Arm. v Superimcmdcnr ofIns. qfState ofN.Y., 72 i~iY2d 753, 763 [V~ Dept ~98~]), Here, the court finds that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the OCB Board’s determination upholding the Executive Secretary’s dismissal of Pethioner’s improper practice petition was in violation of lawilil procedure, arbitrazy and capricious, afTected by error of law or without a rational basis. Upon review of the arguments submitted by the parties, the court agrees with OCB and finds that the determination was rationally based, not arbitrary or capricious, consistent with due process and lawfiul procedure, and within the OCB Board’s discretion. The allegations raised in this praceeding fail to allege that the OCB Board violated the New York City Collective Bargaining Law in any way and Petitioner’s relief requested does not fall within the OCB J3oard’s jurisdiction. As OCB correctly noted, Petitioner challenges the fairness of the Board of Certification’s 2015 proceeding regarding the change in
1015531201P ADlER. ORIAN ti~, NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES’ RE11REMENT SYSTEM
P~jo S of 4
S rj~1re C.,u~ R~nJ~ uca n~ liarjr,. paga 4 oi ö
his civil service title to non-managerial, which is beyond the scope of the OCB Board’s judiction and thia Article 7~ proceeding is well outside of the applicable statute of limitation. Furthermore, the court considered Petitioner’s remaining arguments and found them to be without merit As such, the court grants OCBs cross-motion to dismiss the Petition against it. Additionally, the court finds that Petitioner failed to demonstrate his entitlement to the relief requested so the court dismisses the Petition in its entirety as against nil parties without costs or disbursements In any party. As such, it is hereby ORDERED that the court grants Respondent New York City Office of Collective Bargaining’s cross-motion to dismiss Petitioner Brian Adler’s Article 78 Petition as against it and it is further ORDERED that the court dismisses the Petition in its entirety as against sit parties without costs or disbursements to any party; and it is further ORDERED that Respondent New York City Office of Collective Bargaining is directed to serve a copy of this Decision and Orderupon all parties with notice of entry within th~rtv(3(fl days of the dale of this Decision and Order; and it is further ORDERED that this constitutes the decision and order of the court. F~LED 411212021 DATE A~R ~ It 2021 . A S, DC,
Cfl4C5OF~5~ Af~plJc47fQN: CHacts u’APPnoPnIA~
1s~5r~ienia
NEW yo~ cour\rr~’ COUi~FFY CLERK
[J
EDfOPOfl5Q nerrt.e onn~ INCLUDeS ANfl
Jfl.SASSIQN
HON. ER~KA ~di. EDWARi)S J~sc.
fl~ on~nso IN Pa~r
FDUCIARYApPOV41MDn
~OLER. nolAN vs. NEW fORK Cliv EMPLDyeEr REOREMEPJT 8YSTEM
W OTHE1
Pros 4 of 4
If,,prumo Ccnst RoD,~W OnL~’,o Llbr4ry. l~~u 5 of 5