IN RE: George SINOPIDIS (2019)

Petitioner failed to demonstrate that respondent lacked the discretion to formulate and implement the promotional procedures used here, and failed to show that on their face the procedures were unlawful or arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Ruskin v. Ward, 167 A.D.2d 161, 561 N.Y.S.2d 241 [1st Dept. 1990] ).  Nor has petitioner raised an issue as to whether the failing grade he received based on his performance at a Qualifications Review Meeting (QRM) was arbitrary and capricious.  Respondents, such as Port Authority, have “broad discretion to select individuals for civil service appointment and promotion” and this Court shall “not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless there is evidence of arbitrary or unlawful conduct by the appointing officer” (167 A.D.2d 161, 561 N.Y.S.2d 241).  Petitioner's argument that he was “essentially informed” by his superior officers that he had performed well on the QRM does not raise an issue as to the propriety of the failing grade he actually received.