Psychological Disqualification

Administrative agencies govern vast areas of your everyday life and often they make arbitrary and capricious decisions that have a substantial effect on it. Under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules a court can review this decision. Kevin P. Sheerin has settled and litigated various Article 78 appeals from a denial of government issued license to a wrongful discharge from a Government job. If you believe you have been wronged by a government agency, contact the Law Firm of Kevin P. Sheerin.

Under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, you may appeal a written decision made by a public agency you believe has wronged you. Appeals can range from public employers to licensing authorities to the Department of Health to the New York City Housing Authority and City, County and State employment agencies. The Law Offices of Kevin P. Sheerin can help you determine whether you have grounds for an appeal, the Law Offices of Kevin P. Sheerin will assure that your appeal is pursued as effectively as possible.

There are four ways to understand the actions taken under Article 78. There is the motion to compel; motion to review; motion to direct an administrative agency to take action on a particular topic.

Rarely does the Article 78 take the form of the motion to compel because the most ministerial acts of agency or government entities are involved in the motion to compel. Basically it could be that a Judge directs an agency to issue a deed or order from a court.

Nevertheless, it is always advisable to consult with an attorney as soon as possible after receiving an administrative appeal you wish to appeal. Often local laws shorten the statute of limitations from four months to thirty days or less. Often Zoning Board's have 15 day Statutes of Limitation.

It is also important to remember that you should treat the earliest possible time as having ripened you case into an appeal stance. if you wait often you will be prevented from appealing under the statute of limitations.

Chacko v New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services

In a recent case handled by the Law Offices of Kevin P. Sheerin, Plaintiff Joseph Chacko, commenced this Article 78 appeal to challenge New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS’) determination that he failed a civil service promotional exam. Petitioner contended that DCAS scored the essay portion of his exam in an arbitrary and capricious manner. In March of 2006, petitioner took a promotional examination that consisted of two parts: a multiple choice test and an essay. To score the essay portion, DCAS utilized a Rating Guide consisting of two sections, one that assessed the content of the essay and the other that focused on the clarity. This Rating Guide was used incorrectly to grade petitioner’s essay. Points were taken off for minor mistakes and in some cases nonexistent errors. Fundamental fairness dictates that deductions should not be made for correct responses. Also points taken off for the same mistake were categorized in different categories, which allowed the grader to circumvent the limit on point deductions set for each category of error. Additionally, petitioner argued that he was denied scrap paper and that the proctors ended the exam twenty minutes early thereby denying him the time to proofread his essay. Accordingly, the Court granted the petition, annulled the decision of the Civil Service Commission, and remanded the matter for the regrading of petitioner’s exam. Shortly thereafter Mr. Chacko was promoted to Supervisor.

For extensive coverage of current and past Article 78 cases please visit my Weblog New York Civil Service Attorney

Contact us for a consultation