Opinion
05-09-2017
In re Richard AGBAI, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Siskopoulos Law Firm, LLP, New York (Alexandra Siskopoulos of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Benjamin Welikson of counsel), for respondents.
Siskopoulos Law Firm, LLP, New York (Alexandra Siskopoulos of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Benjamin Welikson of counsel), for respondents.
Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered April 3, 2015, granting respondents' cross motion and dismissing the article 78 petition seeking, inter alia, to vacate respondents' determination, dated June 3, 2014, which terminated petitioner's employment as a correction officer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.The determination of respondent New York City Civil Service Commission is subject to judicial review only if "the agency has acted illegally, unconstitutionally, or in excess of its jurisdiction" (Matter of New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection v. New York City Civ. Serv. Commn., 78 N.Y.2d 318, 323, 574 N.Y.S.2d 664, 579 N.E.2d 1385 [1991] ). The court properly rejected petitioner's argument that the Administrative Law Judge did not have the authority and jurisdiction to conduct the subject disciplinary hearing (see e.g. Matter of Stapleton v. Ponte, 138 A.D.3d 751, 27 N.Y.S.3d 892 [2d Dept.2016] ).
Petitioner's remaining contentions are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or unavailing.ACOSTA, J.P., RENWICK, MAZZARELLI, GISCHE, GESMER, JJ., concur.