## Facts

- New York City required most non-uniformed employees hired on or after September 1, 1986 to establish and maintain city residence as a condition of employment.
- Francisco Felix, a permanent competitive-class civil service employee (high-pressure plant tender), was hired in August 1993 and signed an acknowledgment that residency was a condition of employment.
- In 2002, the agency suspected Felix lived outside the city and sent notice directing him to appear and bring specified documentation to prove residency.
- Felix initially produced only a driver’s license listing a city address; he was given additional time to submit more materials.
- Felix submitted additional documents, but at least one tax return listed a Nassau County address.
- The agency concluded Felix failed to establish/maintain city residency and terminated him under the residency law’s forfeiture provision.
- Felix commenced an Article 78 proceeding, arguing termination required disciplinary procedures applicable to “misconduct,” including a preremoval hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether failure to establish or maintain New York City residency under Administrative Code § 12-120 is “misconduct” requiring a preremoval disciplinary hearing for a permanent civil service employee.
2. Whether § 12-120 instead makes nonresidency a failure of a statutory condition of employment resulting in forfeiture after notice and an opportunity to contest.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and upheld the termination.
- The court held that noncompliance with the residency requirement is not “misconduct”; it is failure of a statutory condition of employment resulting in forfeiture.
- Because § 12-120 expressly provides notice and an opportunity to contest before dismissal, a Civil Service Law § 75 preremoval hearing is not required when termination is based on nonresidency.
- Felix received the process specified by § 12-120, and once the agency determined he was not a city resident, his employment was forfeited by operation of the statute.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute defines an ongoing qualification as a condition of public employment and states that failure results in forfeiture, termination for failure to meet that condition is not disciplinary “misconduct.”
- A permanent civil service employee’s expectation of continued employment is subject to objective statutory conditions attached to the position.
- Where the Legislature prescribes a specific, limited procedure (notice and opportunity to contest) for determining whether a condition is unmet, that procedure governs and displaces broader disciplinary hearing requirements for misconduct-based removals.

## Conclusion

The court treated the city residency requirement as an objective condition of employment: after notice and an opportunity to contest, a determination of nonresidency results in automatic forfeiture, and a permanent employee is not entitled to a Civil Service Law § 75 preremoval disciplinary hearing.


Matter of Felix v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Citywide Admin. Servs., 3 N.Y.3d 498 (N.Y. 2004)