## Facts

- A New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) employee, John Daly, was charged with misconduct for allegedly threatening a coworker and striking him, purportedly to discourage criminal complaints arising from an earlier incident.
- A disciplinary hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ), who heard testimony from Daly and the coworker.
- The ALJ credited the coworker’s account, found Daly guilty, and recommended dismissal.
- DEP’s commissioner adopted the ALJ’s findings and terminated Daly.
- Daly appealed under Civil Service Law § 76 to the New York City Civil Service Commission.
- The Commission reviewed the hearing transcript without taking new evidence, reversed the finding of guilt and penalty, and ordered reinstatement with full back pay.
- DEP commenced an Article 78 proceeding challenging the Commission’s reversal; the lower courts confirmed the Commission’s decision.

## Issues

1. Whether Civil Service Law § 76 authorizes a civil service commission, on an administrative appeal based solely on the hearing record, to substitute its judgment for the appointing authority on both guilt and penalty.
2. Whether, after an employee elects commission review under § 76, judicial review in an Article 78 proceeding is directed to the commission’s determination rather than the appointing authority’s original decision.
3. What standard governs Article 78 review of a commission decision reversing discipline imposed after an agency hearing.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the order confirming the Civil Service Commission’s determination.
- The Court held that Civil Service Law § 76 gives the Commission broad authority to affirm, modify, or reverse both findings of guilt and the penalty, even when acting on the existing hearing record.
- The Court held that, when the employee elects commission review, courts review only the Commission’s determination in an Article 78 proceeding.
- Applying deferential review, the Court concluded the Commission’s reversal and reinstatement order could not be disturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Under Civil Service Law § 76, a civil service commission may independently review and reverse an appointing authority’s disciplinary determination as to both culpability and penalty.
- A commission may reweigh the hearing record and reach a different result without taking additional testimony.
- When an employee chooses commission review under § 76, the commission’s determination is the operative final administrative decision for Article 78 review.
- Article 78 review of the commission’s decision is limited to conventional deferential standards (including rationality/arbitrary-and-capricious review and, where applicable, substantial evidence), not a preference for the agency’s initial credibility findings.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained the Commission’s reinstatement order, holding that § 76 permits the Commission to substitute its judgment on guilt and penalty based on the hearing record and that courts, in an Article 78 proceeding, review only the Commission’s determination under deferential standards.


N.Y.C. Dep’t of Env’t Prot. v. N.Y.C. Civ. Serv. Comm’n, 78 N.Y.2d 318, 579 N.E.2d 1385 (N.Y. 1991)