0DWWHURI([XPY1HZ<RUN&LW\+HDOWK +RVSV&RUS0LVFG$

Lexis Advance
7KHGRFXPHQWV\RXVHOHFWHGDUHEHLQJGHOLYHUHG7KLVPD\WDNHD
Research
IHZPLQXWHV

'LVPLVV

More

Document:Matter of Exum v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 37 Misc. 3d 1218(A)
Results list Previous document

Actions

Next document

MatterofExumvNewYorkCityHealth&Hosps.Corp.,37Misc.3d1218(A)
CopyCitation
SupremeCourtofNewYork,KingsCounty
October23,2012,Decided
20858/11
Reporter
37Misc.3d1218(A)|2012N.Y.Misc.LEXIS5155|2012NYSlipOp52078(U)|964N.Y.S.2d58|2012WL5456393

IntheMatteroftheApplicationofWilliamExum,Petitioner,ForaJudgmentPursuanttoArticle78oftheCivilPracticeLawandRules,againstTheNewYorkCity
HealthandHospitalsCorporation,PERSONNELREVIEWBOARD,346BROADWAY,NEWYORK,NY10013,Respondent.

Notice:THISOPINIONISUNCORRECTEDANDWILLNOTBEPUBLISHEDINTHEPRINTEDOFFICIALREPORTS.
PUBLISHEDINTABLEFORMATINTHENEWYORKSUPPLEMENT.

SubsequentHistory:RelatedproceedingatExumv.NYCHealth&Hosps.,Corp.,2015U.S.Dist.LEXIS130435(E.D.N.Y.,Sept.25,2015)

CoreTerms
convictions,arrests,Certificate,goodconduct,terminated,Personnel,license,rehabilitation,discharged,factors,capricious,disorderlyconduct,disqualification,
Disabilities,marijuana,Services,possessionofmarijuana,criminaloffense,privateemployer,offenses,frisks,employmentapplication,factuallyincorrect,unreasonable
risk,instantmatter,publicagency,courtfinds,disqualified,indicates,exhibits

Headnotes/Syllabus

Headnotes
[1218A]AdministrativeLawJudicialReviewAgency'sgroundsforrecommendingthatpetitionerwasunqualifiedforspecialofficerpositionwerebasedupon
erroneousfindingsnotsupportedbyrecord.

Counsel:Petitionerwasselfrepresented,butretainedcounselfororalargument.

ForRespondent:BenjaminJ.Traverse,ofCounseltotheCorporationCounseloftheCityofNewYork.

Judges:RichardVelasquez

,J.

Opinionby:RichardVelasquez

Opinion
RichardVelasquez

,J.

AfteroralargumentandareviewofallsubmissionshereintheCourtfindsasfollows:

KWWSVDGYDQFHOH[LVFRPGRFXPHQW"SGPILG  FULG DIIFDFHFFEI SGGRFIXOOSDWK )VKDUHG)GRFXPHQW)FDVHV)





0DWWHURI([XPY1HZ<RUN&LW\+HDOWK +RVSV&RUS0LVFG$

PetitionercommencedthisproceedingpursuanttoArticle78oftheNewYorkCivilPracticeLawandRules(CPLR),challengingthedecisionoftheNewYorkHealthand
HospitalsCorporationPersonnelReviewBoard(Respondent)inaffirmingtheHealthandHospitalCorporation'sdecisiontodisqualifypetitionerfromappointmenttothe
positionof"specialofficer"underExaminationNo.6090.PetitioneraskstheCourttoreversethisdecision,therebydeemingpetitionerqualifiedforthepositiontowhich
heapplied.PetitionerwasproseuntilthedateofhisOralArgumentinthismatter.Hewasrepresentedbycounselfororalargument.
RespondentcrossmovestheCourttodismissthepetitiononthegroundthatthePersonnelReviewBoard'sdecisionwasrationallybased,andwasnotarbitrary,
capriciousorunlawful.RespondentwasrepresentedBenjaminJ.Traverse,ofCounseltotheCorporationCounseloftheCityofNewYork.

Background
OnOctober16,2009,petitionerWilliamExumappliedforthepositionof"specialofficer"withtheNewYorkCityHealthandHospitalsCorporation(HHC).The"special
officer"positionisdesignatedasaPeaceOfficerpositionpursuanttoNewYorkCriminalProcedureLawSection2.10.Tobefoundeligibleforthisposition,candidatesmust
meettherequirementsforPeaceOfficerstatusinNewYorkState,whichincludesproofofgoodcharacter.Assuch,HHCrequiresallapplicantstorevealallarrests,
convictionsandpendingcharges.Consistentwiththisrequirement,petitionerdulynotedhisrecordwithspecificityonhisapplicationforemploymentwithHHC.
Aspartoftheapplicationprocess,petitionerwassubjecttoabackgroundinvestigationbytheNewYorkCityDepartmentofCitywideAdministrativeServices(DCAS).
UponDCAS'srecommendation,petitioner'sapplicationwasdeniedonthebasisof(1)hisarrestandconvictionrecord,and(2)hisfailuretoaccuratelydisclosehisprior
employmenthistory.HisappealofDCAS'decisiontothePersonnelReviewBoardofTheNewYorkCityHealthandHospitals'Corporationwasdeniedbyadecisiondated
July22,2011.PetitionertimelycommencedhisArticle78ApplicationonSeptember15,2011.
AmongtheexhibitsprovidedtotheCourtbythepartiesisadocumententitled"NOTICEOFEXAMINATION""SpecialOfficer(HHC)".Thisdocumentcontainsdetailed
descriptionsof"WhattheJobInvolves","salary"and"HowtoApply".Theapplicantisinstructedtoreveal"ALLarrests,convictionsandpendingchargesthathave
occurredinyourlifetime.Thisincludesanymaterialssealed,expunged,orsetasideunderFederalorStatelaw...".
Thedocumentalsoliststhefactorswhichmaybecausefordisqualification:"(a)convictionofanoffense,thenatureofwhichindicateslackofgoodmoral
characterordispositiontowardviolenceordisorder,orwhichispunishablebyoneofmoreyearsofimprisonment(b)twoormoreconvictionsofan
offense,wheresuchconvictionsindicatedisrespectforthelaw(c)dischargefromemployment,wheresuchdischargeindicatespoorbehaviororinabilityto
adjusttodiscipline(d)dishonorabledischargefromtheArmedForces."
Acopyofportionsofpetitioner'sapplicationwereattachedas"exhibits"bothbypetitionerandrespondent,alongwithseveralotherexhibitsincludingaNewYorkCity
PoliceDepartment"CriminalHistorySearchBasedSolelyonNYPDRecordswithintheEnvironsofNewYorkCityOnly".Petitioner'sfingerprintsarefoundonthis
documentandthedocumentisdatedAugust29,2008.Afterasearchbaseduponpetitioner'sfingerprintsthefollowingisnotedonsaiddocument:"CriminalRecord:
no".Atthetopofthisdocumentisfoundthisstatement:"GoodConductCertificate".
Petitioneralsoattachedacopyofa"CertificateofMerit"presentedtohimby"TheCriminalCourtoftheStateofNewYork"inrecognitionofoutstandinganddedicated
servicetothePeopleoftheStateofNewYorkduringtheBLIZZARDof1996".Severalotherlettersanddocumentsarealsoprovidedbypetitionerandrespondentand
willbereferredtowhenrelevant.

Discussion
AccordingtoNewYorkPracticeLawandRules(CPLR),inanArticle78proceeding,anadministrativeagency'sdecisionmaybedisturbedbythecourtsifthatdecision
wasarbitrary,capriciousorerroneousasamatteroflaw.CPLR7803(3).Areviewingcourtshouldlooktothe"wholerecordtodeterminewhetherthereexistsa
rationalbasistosupportthefindingsuponwhichtheagency'sdeterminationispredicated".Purdyv.Kreisberg,47NY2d354,358,391N.E.2d1307,1309,418
N.Y.S.2d329(NY1979).Whetherarationalbasisexiststurnsonwhethertheadministrativedeterminationissupportedbysubstantialevidence,whichisdefinedas
suchrelevantproofasareasonablemindmayacceptasadequatetosupportaconclusionorultimatefact."CityofNewYorkv.CityCivilServ.Comm'n,141Misc2d276,
281,532N.Y.S.2d626,630(NYSup.1988).
Intheinstantmatter,thePersonnelReviewBoardforNewYorkCityHealthandHospitalsCorporationbaseditsdecisionupholdingWilliamExum'sdisqualificationforthe
positionofSpecialOfficeronthefollowinggrounds:
1."DCASrecommendedthedisqualificationoftheAppellant,largelyduetohisrecordofarrestsandconvictionsforpossessionofmarijuana'.
2."Histerminationfrompriorsimilaremployment."
3."Hisomissionofthispriorterminationwhenheappliedforexam6090".
AthoroughreviewbytheCourtofallsubmissionsinthismatterandasearchoftherecordindicatesthatallthreeofthesegroundsfordisqualificationarefactually
incorrect.

FactualAnalysisofGroundsforDisqualification
1.OnpetitionerExum'semploymentapplicationforthepositionof"specialofficer"helistsanarrestin1977forallegedlypossessinga"gravityknife"intheglove
compartmentofhiscar.Hepledguiltytodisorderlyconduct,andwas"conditionallydischarged"andhisrecordsealed.Petitionerwas19yearsoldatthetimeofhis
arrest.
Petitioner'snextarrestwhichresultedinaconvictionoccurredonApril2,2000,approximately23yearsafterhisfirstarrestin1977.Petitionerwaschargedwith
possessionofacontrolledsubstance,towit,marijuana,andpledguiltytodisorderlyconduct.Petitionerwasconditionallydischargedandthechargewaslaterdismissed
andtherecordsealed.Thesearepetitioner'sonlyconvictions.Petitionerwasalsoarrestedonpossessionofmarijuana11/10/98,8/18/99,2/17/01,3/9/04and9/8/06.
Eachofthesearrestswasdismissed.Thedateofhisemploymentapplicationforthepositionof"specialofficer"wasOctober16,2009morethanthreeyearsafterhis
lastarrest(September8,2006)forpossessionofmarijuana,achargewhichwasdismissedonOctober5,2006.

KWWSVDGYDQFHOH[LVFRPGRFXPHQW"SGPILG  FULG DIIFDFHFFEI SGGRFIXOOSDWK )VKDUHG)GRFXPHQW)FDVHV)





0DWWHURI([XPY1HZ<RUN&LW\+HDOWK +RVSV&RUS0LVFG$

OnAugust29,2008,theNYPD'sPublicInquiry&RequestSectionissueda"GoodConductCertificate"tothepetitionerandfoundthathehadnocriminalrecordbased
uponhisfingerprintsubmissionforaSearchofhisCriminalHistory.Petitioneralsopointedoutinhispetition,affidavitandexhibitsthatbetweenhisfirstarrestin1977
andhisconvictionin2000,hehadnoarrestsduringthistwentythreeyearperiod.
Thus,petitionerhadonearrestforpossessionofmarijuanawhichresultedinapleaandconvictionfordisorderlyconduct.Theconvictionwaslaterdismissedandthe
recordsealed.Allofpetitioner'sotherarrestsformarijuanapossessionresultedindismissals.
AsregardingcharacterandbackgroundforthepositionofSpecialOfficer,HHC,amongthefactorslistedasreasonsforbeingfoundunqualifiedasmentionedabove,are
convictionsnotarrests.Theonlyconvictionstobeconsideredarethosewhichindicatelackofgoodmoralcharacter,oradispositiontowardviolenceordisorder.
Petitioner'sconvictionswhichcouldindicatealackofgoodmoralcharacteroccurredin1977and2000.Theseconvictionsareseparatedby23years,andthelastin2000
occurred9nearsbeforepetitioner'sapplication.Bothoftheseconvictionswereconditionallydischargedandtherecordsealed.Petitionerhasneverbeensentencedtoa
periodofincarceration.
Moreover,NewYorkCorrectionLaw753:"Factorstobeconsideredconcerningapreviouscriminalconvictionpresumption"statesasfollowsat"2.""Inmakinga
determinationpursuanttosectionsevenhundredfiftytwoofthischapter,thepublicagencyorprivateemployershallalsogiveconsiderationtoacertificationofrelief
fromdisabilitiesoracertificateofgoodconductissuedtotheapplicant,whichcertificateshallcreateapresumptionofrehabilitationinregardtotheoffenseoroffenses
specifiedtherein."PetitionerpresentedhisCertificateofGoodConductathisappealandhearingbeforethePersonnelReviewBoard,andnoevidencewasofferedby
respondenttorebutthispresumption.Furthermore,petitionerobtainedasecond"GoodConductCertificatedatedApril19,2011andwasagainfoundtohave"no
criminalrecord"byanNYPDsearchbaseduponpetitioner'sfingerprintsin2011."
2.Petitionerallegesthathewasneverdischargedfrompriorsimilaremployment,asfoundbyDCASasthesecondreasonforhisdisqualification..Onhisemployment
application,petitionerrespondedto"Question15""Wereyoueverdisciplined(i.e.suspendeddemoted,reprimanded,fined,fired,terminated,discharged)inanyposition,
byeitherapublicorprivateemployer?"Petitionerrespondedbyunderliningtheterms"fired,terminated,discharged"andanswered"N"(no)tothequestion.
Respondent,whilemaintainingthatpetitionerwasterminatedfromhisemploymentwithQualityProtectionServices,attachestohis"CrossMotiontoDismiss,"a
"Memorandum"fromSteveWeitzfromtheCityofNewYork'sCitywidePersonnelServices,entitled"SubjectWilliamExum,ApplicantforSpecialOfficer(HHC),ExamNo.
6090,CaseNo.015469":thatstatesasfollows:

TELEPHONEINTERVIEWWITHQUALITYPROTECTIONSERVICES

CHIEFFINANCIALOFFICERANDVICEPRESIDENTOFOPERATIONS
"Asearchofcandidate'spersonnelfile[WilliamExum]revealedadisciplinarywriteupthatindicatesthaton112403,candidatereceivedawritten
warningforleavinghispostwithoutreliefon112303.Theform,whichstatesthatasimilarincidentwillleadtosuspensionortermination,was
acknowledgedbysignatureinthenameWilliamExum,dated112403.(Emphasissupplied).
ThereportfromthistelephoneinterviewdatedApril27,2010,makesclearthatpetitionerwasnotfired,terminatedordischargedfromhisemploymentwithQuality
ProtectionServices,andthatrespondentwasorshouldhavebeenawareofthisfactatthetimeofpetitioner'shearingonMay19,2010.Accordingly,theCourtfinds
thatpetitionerwasnot"fired,terminated,discharged"fromhispositionwithQualityProtectionServices112403.Noallegationhasbeenmadebyrespondentthat
WilliamExumwas"fired,terminated,discharged"fromanyotherpriorsimilaremployment.Thus,thesecondgroundforfindingpetitionerunqualifiedforthesubject
positionisfactuallyincorrect.
3.Petitionerdidnotomit"hispriortermination"inhisemploymentapplication,ashewasneverterminated.Hedid,however,listthispositioninhisemployment
applicationasa"securityguard"with"QualityProtection,8012ndAve.,NewYorkCity",andprovidehissupervisor'stelephonenumber.Inaddition,underreasonfor
leaving,petitionerstatedthathewas"disciplinedforleavinghispostwithoutrelief",butthatheleftforotherreasons.Helistedhisdutiesas"I.D.checks,patrol,visitors
signinlogs".Accordingly,thethirdgroundforfindingpetitionerunqualifiedforthesubjectpositionis,likewise,factuallyincorrect.

NewYorkCorrectionLawArticle23A:It'sApplicationtoPetitioner'sCase
InthePersonnelReviewBoard's"FindingsandAnalysis",thisstatementisfound:TheCorporationdidnotchallengetheAppellant'seducationandexperienceforthe
positionofSpecialOfficer,butitassertedthathisoverallrecord,whichincludedseveralcriminalarrestsandconvictions,renderedhimunfitforthisposition".The
PersonnelReviewBoard,initsanalysisofpetitioner'scase,statedinitsdecisionthatit"musttakeintoconsideration"aneightfactortestoutlinedinArticle23A,Section
753oftheNewYorkCorrectionLaw.Petitionercontends,however,thatrespondenthasmisrepresentedhisarrestandconvictionrecordandfailedtoprovidehis
CertificateofGoodConductasitwasdated2011afterthehearinghadtakenplace.
AreviewofNewYorkCorrectionLawArticle23Aandtheeightfactorstobeconsideredwhenreviewingapreviouscriminalconviction,indicatesthatthePersonnel
ReviewBoard'sFindingsandAnalysisareerroneousasamatteroflaw.
753ofNewYorkCorrectLawprovidesasfollows:

Factorstobeconsideredconcerningapreviouscriminalconviction:

Presumption

1.Inmakingadeterminationpursuanttosectionseverhundredfiftytwoofthischapter,thepublicagencyorprivateemployershallconsiderthe
followingfactors:

KWWSVDGYDQFHOH[LVFRPGRFXPHQW"SGPILG  FULG DIIFDFHFFEI SGGRFIXOOSDWK )VKDUHG)GRFXPHQW)FDVHV)





0DWWHURI([XPY1HZ<RUN&LW\+HDOWK +RVSV&RUS0LVFG$

(A)Thepublicpolicyofthisstate,asexpressedinthisact,toencouragethelicensureandemploymentofpersonspreviouslyconvictedofoneormore
criminaloffenses.
(B)Thespecificdutiesandresponsibilitiesnecessarilyrelatedtothelicenseoremploymentsoughtbytheperson.
(C)Thebearing,ifany,thecriminaloffenseoroffensesforwhichthepersonwaspreviouslyconvictedwillhaveonhisfitnessorabilitytoperform
oneormoresuchdutiesorresponsibilities.
(D)Thetimewhichhaselapsedsincetheoccurrenceofthecriminaloffenseoroffenses.
(E)Theageofthepersonatthetimeofoccurrenceofthecriminaloffensesoroffense.
(F)Theseriousnessoftheoffenseoroffenses.
(G)Anyinformationproducedbytheperson,orproducedonhisbehalfinregardtohisrehabilitationandgoodconduct.
(H)Thelegitimateinterestofthepublicagencyorprivateemployerinprotectingproperty,andthesafetyandwelfareofspecificindividualsorthe
generalstate.

2.Inmakingadeterminationpursuanttosectionseverhundredfiftytwoofthischapter,thepublicagencyorprivateemployershallalsogive
considerationtoacertificateofrelieffromdisabilitiesoracertificateofgoodconductissuedtotheapplicant,whichcertificateshallcreatea
presumptionofrehabilitationinregardtotheoffenseoroffensesspecifiedtherein.(Emphasissupplied)
WhereacourtfindsthatarespondenthasdisqualifiedapetitionerbyfailingtoaddresstheeightobligatoryCorrectionLawfactorsandgiveproperconsiderationto
evidenceofpetitioner'srehabilitationandgoodconductincludinghisCertificateofRelieffromDisabilities,orCertificateofGoodConduct,therespondent'sdecisionto
disqualifyhasbeenfoundtobearbitrary,capriciousandanabuseofdiscretion.See,IntheMatteroftheApplicationofSotov.NewYorkStateOfficeofMental
RetardationandDevelopmentalDisabilities,26Misc3d1215[A],907N.Y.S.2d104,2010NYSlipOp50103[U],2010WL334857(N.Y.Sup.2010).
InSoto,thepetitionerhadbeenconvictedonFebruary27,2004ofcriminalpossessionofaweaponinthe4thdegreeandhadservedasentenceofoneyear.On
September26,2008,petitionerhadbeengrantedaCertificateofRelieffromDisabilities.PetitionerhadnootherarrestsafterhisreleasefromprisonasofSeptember
26,2008whenhewasgrantedhisCertificate.Petitionerappliedforapositionasschoolbusdriverandhadtherequisiteexperienceandeducationrequiredbythe
position.
Basedupontherespondent'sreasonfordenialofpetitioner'sapplicationinSoto"thatthepublicpolicyofthestatetoencouragetheemploymentofpersonsconvicted
ofcriminaloffenseswasoutweighedbytheunreasonableriskthattheemploymentofpetitionerwouldpresenttothesafetyandwelfareofthementallyretardedand
developmentallydisabledindividualswhowouldbeunderhiscare."theCourtfoundrespondent'sdecisiontobearbitrary,capriciousandanabuseofdiscretion.
Intheinstantmatter,petitionerhastwoconvictionsfordisorderlyconductoneforpossessionofa"gravityknife"whenpetitionerwas19yearsold,andasecondfor
possessionofmarijuanaover23yearslater.Bothoftheseconvictionsresultedfrompetitionerpleadingguiltytodisorderlyconduct.Allofpetitioner'sotherarrestswere
dismissedwiththeexceptionofthesetwoconvictionsforwhichpetitionerpledguiltytoalessoroffenseandwasneversentencedtoatermofincarcerationMoreover,
752and753addressonlyconvictionsandnotarrests.Althoughrespondentmaintainsthatpetitionerhadtwoconvictionsformarijuana,respondentisincorrect.
Petitionerhadtwoconvictionsfordisorderlyconduct,onlyoneofwhichresultedfromanarrestformarijuana,andbothofwhichwereconditionallydischarged.
Respondentalsomaintainsthatpetitionerproduceda"CertificateofGoodConduct"datedin2011afterhisdenialbythePersonnelReviewBoard'sdecision.Tothe
contrary,petitionerhasincludedinhisseveralexhibitshis2008"CertificateofGoodConduct"whichheprovidedtothePersonnelReviewBoardathishearing.

NewYorkCorrectionsLawArticle23A:PolicyConsiderations
"Article23AoftheCorrectionLawwasenactedin1976inanattempttoeliminatethe
effectofbiasagainstexoffenderswhichpreventedthemfromobtainingemployment.Studiesestablishthatthebiasagainstemployingorlicensingexoffenderswas
notonlywidespreadbutparticularlyunfairandcounterproductive."Bonacorsav.VanLindt,71NY2d605,523N.E.2d806,528N.Y.S.2d519(NY1988).The
BonacorsaCourtgoesontoemphasizethatevenwherethestatutorydefinitionof"directrelationship"betweentheconvictionandtheemploymentorlicensesought
applies,acertificateofgoodconductcreatesapresumptionofrehabilitationwhichcanbeovercomebytheproductionofindependentevidencetorebutthepresumption.
Intheinstantmatter,itappearsthatthepetitionerwasnotgivenapresumptionofrehabilitationwarrantedbyhisCertificateofGoodConduct,bythePersonnelReview
Boardandthatnoevidencewaspresentedtorebutsaidpresumption.Thesamepresumptionappliestothe"unreasonablerisk"exception.Noevidencewaspresentedto
rebutsaidpresumptionasitappliesto"unreasonablerisk".
InBonacorsa,thepetitionerinanArticle78proceedinghadbeenalicensedownertrainerdriverofharnessracehorses.In1974hislicensewasrevokedbecausehe
wasconvictedofviolatingtheRulesoftheRacingandWageringBoardandFederalcrimes.Hisarticle78proceedingchallengedtheRacingandWageringBoard'sdenial
ofanapplicationhemadeforanewlicensein1985.
InfindingthattheHearingOfficer'sdecisiontodenythelicensewasnotarbitraryorcapricious,thecourtconsideredthatNewYorkCorrectionsLawArticle23Aisa
powerfulandnecessarypublicpolicy.ThecourtalsofoundthattheHearingOfficerinBonacorsaanalyzedeachoftheeightfactorslistedinsection753oftheCorrections
Lawandweighedthepolicyconsiderationsandlawagainstthefactsofpetitioner'scase.TheHearingOfficeralsoconsideredthelegitimateinterestoftheRacingand
WageringBoardinprotectingthesafetyandwelfareofthegeneralpublicasthestatuerequires.Petitionerhadbeenconvictedoftwofeloniescarryingamaximum
sentenceoffiveyears'imprisonmentanda$5,000.00fine.Thus,theHearingOfficerdeniedthelicensetopetitioner,ashewasanindividualinvolvedinacriminal
schemetocoverupforanotherwhopetitionerknewhadbeenbarredfromhorseracing.Respondentdeniedsaidlicenseasalegitimatemeansofpreventingthe
appearanceorfactofimproprietyinthesport.
InAcostav.NewYorkDept.OfEducation,16NY3d309,946N.E.2d731,921N.Y.S.2d633(NY2011),
theNewYorkCityBarAssociationfiledanAmicusCuriaebriefbeforetheCourtofAppealsinsupportofpetitionerAcosta.,andinsupportofafindingthattheNewYork

KWWSVDGYDQFHOH[LVFRPGRFXPHQW"SGPILG  FULG DIIFDFHFFEI SGGRFIXOOSDWK )VKDUHG)GRFXPHQW)FDVHV)





0DWWHURI([XPY1HZ<RUN&LW\+HDOWK +RVSV&RUS0LVFG$

CityDepartmentofEducation'sdenialofemploymenttopetitionerwasarbitraryandcapricious.ThefollowingisanexcerptfromsaidbrieffocusingonthepurposeofNew
YorkCorrectionLaw:
Article23AoftheNewYorkCorrectionLawisalandmarkstatutethatarticulatesabroadandpowerfulpublicpolicyfavoringemployment
opportunitiesforindividualswhohavepreviouslybeenconvictedofoneormorecriminaloffenses.Oneofthelaw'sprincipalgoalsistoreduce
recidivismbyincreasingemploymentopportunitiesforpersonswithcriminalrecords.Byitsterms,anemployermaynotdenyorterminate
employmentonthebasisofpriorcriminalconvictionsexceptintwonarrowlydefinedcircumstances.Someemployers,licensingentities,andpublic
agenciesinNewYork,however,haveadoptedimpermissiblybroadinterpretationsofArticle23A'sexceptionsthathaveeffectivelyturnedthis
antidiscriminationprovisiononitshead.TheyhaveemployedproceduresthatcomplyneitherwithNewYorkadministrativelawnortherequirements
ofArticle23A,frustratingthelegislature'saimofeliminatingemploymentdiscriminationagainstformeroffenders.Asaresult,personswithcriminal
histories,havingbeendeniedemploymentonthebasisofconvictionsfrommanyyearsbefore,mustcommenceArticle78proceedingstosecurethe
rightsguaranteedbythestatuteanoptiontheymaynotevenknowaboutandthat,giventhelimitedresourcesoflegalservicesfirms,maynot
realisticallybeavailable.BriefofAmicusCuriaetheNewYorkCityBarAssociation,Inthe
MatteroftheApplicationofMadelineAcosta,PetitionerAppellee,v.TheNewYorkCityDepartmentofEducation,etal,CourtofAppealsofNewYork,May18,2010.
TheCourtinAcostafoundthattheDepartmentofEducationdidnotconsidereachoftheeightfactorsasfoundinCorrectionLaw753andthattheirdenialwas,indeed,
arbitraryandcapricious.
TheLegislaturehasdeterminedthat,asageneralrule,itisunlawfulforapublicorprivateemployertodenyanapplicationforalicenseor
employmentonthegroundthattheapplicantwaspreviouslyconvictedofacrime.Thisgeneralprohibitionadvancestherehabilitationand
reintegrationgoalsofthePenalLaw.Furthermore,barringdiscriminationagainstthosewhohavepaidtheirdebttosocietyandfacilitatingtheir
effortstoobtaingainfulemploymentbenefitsthecommunityasawhole.Thedirectrelationship'exceptionandtheunreasonablerisk'exceptionto
thisgeneralrulemayberesortedtoonlyuponaconsiderationofeachoftheeightfactorsenumeratedinCorrectionLaw753.Acostav.NewYorkDept
OfEducation,16NY3d309,946N.E.2d731,921N.Y.S.2d633(NY2011). 1
Likewise,inFormicaConstruction,Inc.,etalv.Mintz,65AD3d686,885N.Y.S.2d298(2ndDept.2009),thecourtfoundthatadeterminationbytheNewYork
DepartmentofConsumerAffairs(DCA)denyingaconstructioncontractor'sapplicationtorenewhomeimprovementcontractorlicenseonthegroundthataprincipalin
thebusinesshadarecentfelonyconvictionthatwasrelatedtothelicensesought,wasproperlyannulledbytheSupremeCourt,RichmondCounty,astheDCAdidnot
reflectinitsdeterminationthatithadconsideredalleightstatutoryfactors.Similarly,inSotoLopezv.NewYorkCityCivilServiceCommission,713F.Supp.677(SDNY
1989),theCourtheldthatamanslaughterconvictionwouldnotwarrantexclusionofanotherwisequalifiedindividualfromemploymentasahousingcaretakerwiththe
cityhousingauthorityastherewasnodirectrelationshipbetweentheoffenseandtheemploymentsought,andgrantingtheapplicationforemploymentwouldnot
involveanunreasonablerisktopropertyorsafetyorwelfareofgeneralpublic.
IntheMatterofElv.NewYorkCityDept.OfEduc.,23Misc3d1121[A],886N.Y.S.2d70,2009NYSlipOp50883[U](N.Y.Sup.2009),thecourtfoundthatithada
"dutytoinsurethatthelawisproperlyappliedandthatthedecisiondenyingpetitioner'ssubstituteteacherapplicationisnotbaseduponspeculativeinferences
unsupportedbytherecord'.Here,respondent'sdenialletterwasparticularlyproblematicinthatpetitioner'scriminalhistorywastheonlyevidencedetailedinany
meaningfulrespect.ThecourtdeterminedthattheBoardofEducationfailedtoconsideralleightofthestatutoryfactorsandtheevidencepresentedbypetitioner,
includingaCertificateofRelieffromDisabilitiesandthefactthatmanyyearshadpassedsincepetitioner'sconvictions.

OtherfactorsExaminedThatareConsistentwithArticle23APolicy
PetitionerisanAfricanAmericanman.Duringtheyearshewasarrestedandsubsequentlychargesagainsthimweredismissed(19982006),numerousconcernswere
raisedbythepublic,themedia,writersandadvocatesregardingNewYork's"stopandfrisk"policies.ThesepoliciesresultedinamuchgreaterproportionofAfrican
AmericanandLatinomenbeingsubjectedto"stopsandfrisks,thanwerepresentinthepopulationatlarge.Theseaccountshavebeenthoroughlydocumented.Seefor
example,74NYULR956,NewYorkUniversityLawReview:STOPPINGTHEUSUALSUSPECTS:RACEANDTHEFOURTHAMENDMENT(October,1999)demonstratingthat
theNewYorkCity"StreetCrimesUnit",createdtoconfiscateillegalhandguns,conductednearlyfortythousandstopsandfrisksin1997and1998thatproducedno
contrabandofanysort.ThevastbulkofthosestoppedandfriskedwithoutadequatebasiswereAfricanAmericanandLatinos.
NotonlywereAfricanAmericansstoppedandfriskedatamuchhigherratethanwhitesduringthistimeperiod,butwhenarrestsweremade,theywereoftenfor
possessingsmallamountsofmarijuanainpublicview.The"publicview:"occurredwhenthedetainedwereaskedtoemptytheirpockets,andthosesmallamountsof
marijuanawerethenfoundin"publicview"andthepersondetained,wasthenarrested.6NYPrac.CriminalLaw26:1. 2
ThesestatisticsandcommentarydemonstratethatNewYorkCorrectionsLawArticle23Acanbeoneofthemosteffectivetoolsinensuringthatemployment
discriminationisaddressedandrectified,particularlyincircumstancesasintheinstantmatter.PetitionerWilliamExumhascommittednooffenseswhichwouldinany
waycauseinjurytoothers,wasarrestedforpossessionofmarijuana,apparentlyduringstopsandfrisks,andallofhisarrests,exceptoneweredismissedafewweeks
later.Hepledguiltytotwodifferentchargesofdisorderlyconduct,oneresultingfromthepossessionofagravityknifeattheageofnineteenandanotherresultingfrom
possessionofmarijuanaapproximatelytwentythreeyearslater.PetitionerwasgrantedaCertificateofGoodConductonAugust29,2008,andnotonescintillaof
evidencewaspresentedbyrespondenttorebutthepresumptionaccordedthisCertificate,todemonstratethatpetitionerwasnotrehabilitated.
Thesecondtworeasonsrespondentshavegivenasreasonsforpetitioner'sdisqualificationarebothfactuallyincorrect.Petitionerhasneverbeenterminatedfroma
position,andherevealedhisentireemploymenthistoryinhisapplicationforemploymentincludingthefactthathehadbeen"writtenup"forhavinglefthissecurity
guardstationwithoutpermission.
Finally,theStateofNewYorkandthiscourtpracticeapolicyinfavorofrehabilitationandencouragestheemploymentofpersonswithapriorconvictionassetforthin
NewYorkCorrectionLawArticle23A.

Conclusion
Accordingly,theCourtfindsthatthedeterminationofrespondentisarbitrary,capricious,anderroneousasamatteroflaw.Whilebasingitsfindingthatpetitionerwas
disqualifiedongroundsthatwerefactuallyincorrectandinerror,respondentalsofailedtospecifythebearing,ifany,thatpetitioner'sconvictions,whichhavehadonhis

KWWSVDGYDQFHOH[LVFRPGRFXPHQW"SGPILG  FULG DIIFDFHFFEI SGGRFIXOOSDWK )VKDUHG)GRFXPHQW)FDVHV)





0DWWHURI([XPY1HZ<RUN&LW\+HDOWK +RVSV&RUS0LVFG$

fitnessorabilitytoperformsuchdutiesorresponsibilitiesandthepositionatissuecalledfor.TheCourtfindsthatsinceallthefactorsenumeratedinCorrectionLaw753
werenotproperlyaddressedandconsidered,thedeterminationthatpetitionermustbedisqualifiedisarbitrary,capricious,anderroneousasamatteroflaw.
ItisherebyORDERED,thattheinstantArticle78petitionofWilliamExumisgrantedtotheextentthattheJuly22,2011denialbyrespondentofpetitioner's
applicationforemploymentasasecurityguardisherebyannulledanditisfurther
ORDERED,thattheinstantmatterisremandedtorespondentforanewdeterminationbaseduponthe":eightfactorsenumeratedinCorrectionLaw753(1)and,the
statutorypresumptionofrehabilitationwithrespecttoaCertificateofGoodConduct,pursuanttoCorrectionLaw753(2).
ORDEREDthatrespondents'crossmotiontodismissisherebydeniedinitsentirety.
ThisconstitutestheDecisionandOrderoftheCourt.
ENTER:
RICHARDVELASQUEZ

,J.S.C

Footnotes
1

Seealso,JocelynSimonson,RethinkingRationalDiscrimination'AgainstExOffenders,13GeorgetownJournalonPovertyLawandPolicy283(2006).

Seealso,Alexander,Michelle.TheNewJimCrow:MassIncarcerationintheAgeofColorblindness.NewYork,TheNewPress,2012foradetailedexamination
ofthedrugwarwhichwasbeguninaneraofdecliningdruguse,anditseffectonAfricanAmericans,Latinosandthepoor.

Jump To

KWWSVDGYDQFHOH[LVFRPGRFXPHQW"SGPILG  FULG DIIFDFHFFEI SGGRFIXOOSDWK )VKDUHG)GRFXPHQW)FDVHV)