Opinion
June 23, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.).
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We agree with Special Term's finding that the New York City Transit Authority terminated petitioner's employment pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 in violation of petitioner's constitutional rights.
A permanent civil service employee has a recognized property interest in his position, and may not be deprived of his right to continue employment without due process (see, Matter of Economico v. Village of Pelham, 50 N.Y.2d 120; Matter of Johnson v Director, Downstate Med. Center, 52 A.D.2d 357, affd 41 N.Y.2d 1061). At a minimum, the affected employee is entitled to notice of the proposed disciplinary action and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner (see, Matter of Economico v. Village of Pelham, supra; Matter of Marsh v Hanley, 50 A.D.2d 687).
The appellants did provide the petitioner with notice of the charges against him and of his right to be heard. However, at the time of the hearing, the petitioner was involuntarily committed to the custody of the State Commissioner of Mental Hygiene, who denied the petitioner permission to attend the hearing. The appellants were aware of this fact, but nonetheless proceeded in the petitioner's absence. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Therefore, Special Term did not err when it directed that petitioner be reinstated to his former position, with back pay, until such time as a new determination may be rendered (see, Matter of Tanner v. County of Nassau, 88 A.D.2d 661).
The petitioner's contention that the appellants must proceed pursuant to Civil Service Law § 72 and cannot proceed to impose disciplinary sanctions pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 unless the acts of incompetence or misconduct are shown to be willful and intentional is without merit (see, Matter of Brockman v. Skidmore, 39 N.Y.2d 1045, revg 43 A.D.2d 572; Matter of Muldoon v. Mayor of Syracuse, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 236-237; cf. Matter of Pollman v. Fahey, 106 A.D.2d 771). Niehoff, J.P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.