IN RE: Terrence ROBINSON (2025)

Determination of respondent New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), dated October 25, 2023, which, after a hearing, terminated petitioner's employment with NYCHA, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Lyle E. Frank, J.], entered on or about November 6, 2024), dismissed, without costs.

The disciplinary proceedings were timely commenced under Civil Service Law § 75(4), as petitioner was served with the amended charges within 18 months of the earliest of the various charged incidents of misconduct (see Mikoleski v. Bratton, 249 A.D.2d 83, 84, 671 N.Y.S.2d 75 [1st Dept. 1998]).  We reject petitioner's argument that any delay in commencing the hearing prejudiced him because the delay was caused by his own violation of NYCHA's vaccine policy (see e.g. Gerber v. New York City Hous. Auth., 42 N.Y.2d 162, 165, 397 N.Y.S.2d 608, 366 N.E.2d 268 [1977]).

Substantial evidence supported the trial officer's report sustaining 14 of the 15 charges of employee misconduct and incompetence leveled against petitioner (see Matter of Madera v. New York City Hous. Auth., 146 A.D.3d 733, 733, 47 N.Y.S.3d 260 [1st Dept. 2017]).  NYCHA submitted testimony from petitioner's former supervisors, along with multiple counseling memoranda, which showed that petitioner repeatedly refused to comply with their directives and to perform the tasks assigned to him.  The testimony also established that petitioner became argumentative and hostile when asked to complete tasks, to the extent that his behavior required reports to NYCHA's Office of Safety and Security.

We reject petitioner's arguments concerning respondent's witnesses’ alleged bias and inconsistent testimony, since there exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the trial officer (see Matter of Scantlebury v. New York City Police Dept., 178 A.D.3d 502, 503, 111 N.Y.S.3d 853 [1st Dept. 2019]).

Termination of petitioner's employment does not shock one's sense of fairness as it is not so disproportionate to the seriousness of the multiple charges of misconduct and incompetency proven (see Alves v. New York City Hous. Auth., 180 A.D.3d 553, 554, 121 N.Y.S.3d 8 [1st Dept. 2020]).  Moreover, petitioner submitted no evidence showing that he was terminated after engaging in protected activity, and the record was clear that he was discharged due to his own incompetence and misconduct (see Matter of Shapiro v. Commissioner of Labor, 112 A.D.3d 412, 413, 976 N.Y.S.2d 64 [1st Dept. 2013]).