Opinion
2003-00657.
Decided March 8, 2004.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Suffolk County Department of Civil Service, dated March 6, 2002, finding the petitioner not qualified to serve in the position of Suffolk County Park Police Officer, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated November 25, 2002, which, inter alia, dismissed the proceeding.
Schlachter Mauro, Commack, N.Y. (Reynold A. Mauro of counsel), for appellant.
Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Stephanie C. Galteri of counsel), for respondents.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
An appointing authority has wide discretion in determining the fitness of candidates ( see Matter of Needleman v. County of Rockland, 270 A.D.2d 423, 424; Matter of Havern v. Senko, 210 A.D.2d 480, 481; Matter of Metzger v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Comm., 54 A.D.2d 565, 566). This discretion is particularly broad in the hiring of law enforcement officers, to whom high standards may be applied ( see Matter of Conlon v. Commissioner of Civ. Serv. of County of Suffolk, 225 A.D.2d 766, 767; Matter of Havern v. Senko, supra). As long as the administrative determination is not irrational or arbitrary, this court will not interfere with it ( see Matter of Mark v. Schneider, 305 A.D.2d 685, 686; Matter of Choset v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 199 A.D.2d 264, 265).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, his habitual use of alcohol, his past use of illegal substances, his admission to having driven under the influence of alcohol on four occasions in the prior 12 months, and his questionable veracity, refute his claim that the respondents' determination was irrational or arbitrary ( see Matter of Conlon v. Commissioner of Civ. Serv. of County of Suffolk, supra; Matter of Havern v. Senko, supra; Matter of Metzger v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Comm., supra).
The petitioner's claim that the respondents violated his rights under Executive Law §§ 292(21) and 296(1)(a) is without merit ( see Matter of Curcio v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 220 A.D.2d 412, 413; Matter of Seitz v. Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 146 A.D.2d 631, 632; cf, Matter of Daubman v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 195 A.D.2d 602, 603).
The petitioner's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.