Opinion
INDEX NO. 155032/2019
09-26-2019
PATRICK LYNCH, THE POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, INC., Petitioner, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DEPUTY INSPECTOR NICOLE PAPAMICHAEL, JOHN BEIRNE Respondent.
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 PRESENT: HON. LYLE E. FRANK Justice MOTION DATE 09/25/2019 MOTION SEQ. NO. 001
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 were read on this motion to/for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER).
This proceeding arises out of the New York City Police Department's ("NYPD") undisputed practice of denying NYPD police officers line of duty benefits without providing those officers with any written reason or explanation for denying them this benefit. Petitioners now seek an Order pursuant to CPLR Articles 78 and 30, injunctive and declaratory relief to require respondents to provide written reasons to police officers when they deny line of duty benefits and to identify the information considered in denying such benefits.
Respondents oppose the instant petition primarily on two grounds; statute of limitations and failure to state a claim. Respondents also argue that neither the Line of Duty statute nor the Collective Bargaining Agreement with petitioners, mandate that reasons be provided for the denial of line of duty injury benefits. Respondents further argue that the determination of whether to grant or deny police officers line of duty injury benefits is discretionary therefore mandamus would be inappropriate. Line of Duty Benefits and Procedure
Sections 12-127(a) and (b) of the New York City Administrative Code (the "LOD statute") govern instances in which police officers, and other designated City employees, who are injured or made ill during, or as a result of, the performance of their duties receive medical treatment at the expense of the City. Police officers are not covered by the New York Worker's Compensation Law as such, line of duty benefits are provided statutorily in lieu of worker's compensation benefits.
Police officers must follow certain guidelines, enumerated in the NYPD Patrol Guide, with respect to requests for line of duty injury benefits. When a police officer becomes ill or is injured in the line of duty, the officer must report it to his or her supervisor then a Line of Duty Injury Report is completed, also referred to as the LOD application. The LOD application includes results of the supervisor's investigation and may also include various other documents such as witness statements, a police accident report, unusual occurrence report, and the officer's medical records. The LOD application is submitted to the commanding officer of the officer's precinct for approval. Pursuant to guidelines already in place, if the precinct commanding officer disapproves the LOD application, he or she must indicate the reason on the LOD application. If the LOD application is approved, it is then submitted to the Medical Division of the NYPD for final approval or disapproval. When the Medical Division denies an LOD application it does not provide the police officer with any written reason or explanation for the denial.
The NYPD has an internal appeals procedure available when the Medical Division disapproves a police officer's LOD application. The aggrieved officer may appeal such disapproval to the Deputy Commissioner of the NYPD Office of Labor Relations. It is undisputed that police officers are not provided with any written rules or procedures for internal appeals. As with the determinations by the Medical Division, if the OLR Deputy Commissioner denies a police officer's internal appeal, he neither provides reasons for his denial of the appeal nor identifies the information considered in reaching the decision. Thus, as petitioners argue, leaving an aggrieved police officer without recourse to challenge the determination. Article 78 Standard of Review
Article 78 review is permitted, where it is alleged a determination was made "in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion...." NY CPLR §7803(3).
"Arbitrary" for the purpose of the statute is interpreted as "when it is without sound basis in reason and is taken without regard to the facts." Pell v Board of Ed. of Union Free School Dist. No. of the Towns of Scarsdale and Mamaroneck, Westchester Cty. 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974].
A court can overturn an administrative action only if the record illuminates there was no rational basis for the decision. Id. "Rationality is what is reviewed under both the substantial evidence rule and the arbitrary and capricious standard." Id. If the court reviewing the determination finds that "[the determination] is supported by facts or reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the records and has a rational basis in the law, it must be confirmed." American Telephone & Telegraph v. State Tax Comm'n 61 NY2d 393, 400 (1984).
Further, an Article 78 petition may be brought to seek the remedy of mandamus, that is, to compel an agency "to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law" (CPLR 7803[1]). Mandamus applies only to compel a ministerial duty and not those that involve the exercise of judgment or discretion (Brusco v Braun, 84 NY2d 674, 679 [1994]). Thus, to be entitled to mandamus, petitioner must show "a clear legal right to the relief demanded" and "a corresponding nondiscretionary duty on the part of the agency to grant that relief" (Matter of Scherbyn v Wayne-Finger Lakes Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 77 NY2d 753, 757 [1991]). Discussion
The issue before the Court is quite narrow. Petitioners seek to compel respondents to issue written determinations with respect to denials of LOD injury benefits; contrary to respondents' contentions, these written determinations need not be "lengthy opinions".
Petitioners argue that when the NYPD denies access to line of duty benefits, police officers have a legal right to know the reason or reasons for the denial, and to know what information was considered to reach the decision. This knowledge, petitioners argue, would enable the officer to evaluate the decision and to challenge the decision or seek an appeal or judicial review as appropriate. Petitioners aver that the NYPD's practice of failing to provide reasons for the denials of line of duty applications and internal appeals therefrom and failing to identify the information considered in the denial, is arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners do not argue or attempt to undermine the discretion that the NYPD has in its determination of either granting or denying such benefits.
Petitioners also argue that this failure also forecloses the possibility of fair judicial review and deprives police officers of their right to such review. Without knowing the reasons for the NYPD's denial, or the information relied upon in rendering the denial, a court cannot determine if the NYPD arrived at the decision rationally and based on the evidence.
In opposition, respondents argue that the policy in which it makes LOD application determinations and the way it reports that information is a practice that has existed for decades. Respondents further contend that in the decades of this practice petitioners have not aggrieved it at any point, thus the practice should stand. Respondents also argue there is no law or agreement that compels a written basis for its determination, however they fail to address the practical arguments for such a requirement. Respondents attempt to draw a parallel between the termination of probationary police officers, without providing a reason, and the denial of benefits in the instant proceeding. The Court rejects this attempt as the two issues are distinguishable, as it is well established that probationary and tenured employees are not similarly situated, thus not entitled to the same protections (Brown v City of NY, 250 AD2d 546, 547 [1st Dept 1998]). Moreover, respondents fail to allege any prejudice that would occur should this Court grant the instant petition.
It is well established that when an agency makes a determination to deny a benefit the agency has an obligation to provide its reasoning. See, e.g., Matter of Koch v Sheehan, 21 NY3d 697, 703-04 [2013] (excluding physician from Medicaid program arbitrary and capricious where record did not reflect reasons for decision); Punnett v Evans, 26 AD2d 396, 399 [1st Dept 1966] (holding that courts will not sanction agency behavior that fails to apprise the court of the basis for its finding). In Barry v O'Connell, the Court of Appeals held,
"It is thus made clear that where ... an unsuccessful applicant for a license invokes the statutory right to review the action ..., the lack of a statement of the factual basis for the determination not only burdens the applicant in preparing his challenge to the determination, but also impedes the court in its review of that determination. "If the administrative action is to be tested by the basis upon which it purports to rest, that basis must be set forth with such clarity as to be understandable. It will not do for a court to be compelled to guess at the theory underlying the agency's action; nor can a court be expected to chisel that which must be precise from what the agency has left vague and indecisive. In other words, 'We must know what a decision means before the duty becomes ours to say whether it is right or wrong.'"303 NY 46, 51-52 [1951] internal citations omitted. Thus, as is clear by the record, petitioners do not seek to appeal a single Line of Duty Injury determination made by the NYPD, rather petitioners lawfully seek written explanations to preserve their rights to appeal an administrative decision.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED the petition is granted to the extent that Respondents are to provide written reasons to police officers when they deny police officers' Line of Duty Injury applications and internal appeals and to identify the information considered in rendering such denials; an it is further
ORDERED that any relief not expressly addressed in this order has nonetheless been considered and is hereby denied. 9/26/2019
DATE
/s/ _________
LYLE E. FRANK, J.S.C.