Opinion
Appeal No. 15211 Index No. 100221/19Case No. 2020-01145
02-03-2022
In the Matter of Yakik Rumley, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NYC Department of Education OPI, Respondent-Respondent. Appeal No. 15211 No. 2020-01145
Yakik Rumley, appellant pro se. Georgia M. Pestana, Attorney General, New York (Geoffrey M. Stannard of counsel), for appellant.
Yakik Rumley, appellant pro se.
Georgia M. Pestana, Attorney General, New York (Geoffrey M. Stannard of counsel), for appellant.
Before: Kapnick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gesmer, Kennedy, Pitt, JJ.
Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 23, 2019, denying the petition to annul a determination of the New York City Department of Education (DOE), dated October 29, 2018, which denied petitioner's application for security clearance, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In an article 78 proceeding seeking review of an agency determination, the agency which issued the determination must be a named party (see CPLR 1001(a); Johnson v Scholastic Inc., 52 A.D.3d 375, 375 [1st Dept 2008]; Matter of Solid Waste Servs., Inc. v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 29 A.D.3d 318, 319 [1st Dept], lv denied 7 N.Y.3d 710 [2006]). While petitioner argues, for the first time on appeal, that the caption contains a misnomer which the court should have ignored, petitioner never moved for leave to amend to cure the alleged misnomer (see generally Maldonado v Maryland Rail Commuter Serv. Admin., 91 N.Y.2d 467, 472 [1998]; Matter of Brodsky v New York City Campaign Fin. Bd., 107 A.D.3d 544, 545 [1st Dept 2013]; Flax v Lincoln Natl. Life Ins. Co., 54 A.D.3d 992, 995 [2d Dept 2008]).
As an alternative holding, we find that the denial of petitioner's security clearance application has a rational basis in the record (see Matter of Dempsey v New York City Dept. of Educ., 25 N.Y.3d 291, 300 [2015]; see also Matter of Arrocha v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 93 N.Y.2d 361, 363-364 [1999]). The finding that petitioner's conviction, notwithstanding his receipt of a certificate of relief from civil disabilities, combined with his prior misconduct and failure to disclose required information, indicate poor judgment, is supported by the record. DOE rationally concluded that this bore a direct relationship to petitioner's application for a security clearance, and that petitioner's employment would pose an undue risk. In any event, the nature of petitioner's prior misconduct, as well as his failure to disclose the prior misconduct, provide an independent and rational basis for denying the security clearance application (see Matter of Coleman v New York City Dept. of Educ. Div. of Human Resources, 154 A.D.3d 537, 538 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 911 [2018]).