Opinion
8463 Index 160141/16
02-21-2019
In re Sean SOKOL, Petitioner–Appellant, v. The NEW YORK CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Matthew Jeon, P.C., New York (Matthew Jeon of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ingrid R. Gustafson of counsel), for respondents.
Matthew Jeon, P.C., New York (Matthew Jeon of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ingrid R. Gustafson of counsel), for respondents.
Renwick, J.P., Tom, Singh, Moulton, JJ.
"Wide discretion is afforded to civil service commissions in determining the fitness of candidates," and "[t]he exercise of that discretion is to be sustained unless it has been clearly abused" ( Matter of Smith v. City of New York, 228 A.D.2d 381, 383, 644 N.Y.S.2d 720 [1st Dept. 1996], lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 806, 654 N.Y.S.2d 716, 677 N.E.2d 288 [1997] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Petitioner fails to show that the finding that he was not qualified for the position of police officer was arbitrary and capricious or in bad faith (see Matter of Carchietta v. Department of Personnel of City of N.Y., 172 A.D.2d 304, 305, 568 N.Y.S.2d 386 [1st Dept. 1991] ). The determination was rationally based on, among other things, petitioner's failure to meet the minimum grade point average as reflected on his official undergraduate transcript, and his inaccurate statements in application forms about his arrest and drug history (see e.g. Matter of Smith , at 383, 644 N.Y.S.2d 720 ; Matter of Carchietta , at 305, 568 N.Y.S.2d 386 ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.