Opinion
2021-07528 Index 155180/19
12-28-2021
In the Matter of Maribel Reveron, Petitioner, v. The New York State Office of Court Administration et al., Respondents. Appeal No. 14934 No. 2020-01768
Kyle B. Watters, P.C., Bayside (Kyle B. Watters of counsel), for petitioner. Eileen D. Millett, Office of Court Administration, New York (Pedro Morales of counsel), for respondents.
Kyle B. Watters, P.C., Bayside (Kyle B. Watters of counsel), for petitioner.
Eileen D. Millett, Office of Court Administration, New York (Pedro Morales of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Webber, J.P., Gesmer, González, Rodriguez, JJ.
Determination of respondents, dated December 7, 2018, which, after a hearing, sustained charges that petitioner failed to report her possession of a firearm to the Unified Court System (UCS), suspended her for 10 days without pay, and issued a letter of reprimand, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County (W. Franc Perry, III, J.], entered October 18, 2019) dismissed, without costs.
Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner failed to report that she owned a firearm before being hired by UCS in 2001, despite receiving peace officer firearm training in 2009 and recertification training annually thereafter, during which she was expressly instructed to report all firearms in her possession (CPLR 7803[4]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176 [1978]; see also Penal Law § 400.00[12-c][a]). The doctrine of equitable estoppel based on the representations of petitioner's supervisor four years earlier does not bar disciplinary action, given the explicit training petitioner received concerning the reporting requirement, which was in effect at all times (compare Matter of Brady Props. v New York City Loft Bd., 269 A.D.2d 137, 138-139 [1st Dept 2000] [loft board equitably estopped to deny retroactive rent increases to landlord who was not only not informed of relevant policy change but actively misled by a hearing officer about the need to apply for such increases]; Walter v City of New York Police Dept., 256 A.D.2d 8 [1st Dept 1998] [police department equitably estopped from invoking statutory age limitation on appointment to department after repeatedly assuring plaintiffs that their age would not be a consideration in appointment]).
Under the circumstances, we do not find the penalty shocking to our sense of fairness (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233 [1974]; e.g. Matter of Rosenblatt v New York City Admin. for Children's Servs., 36 A.D.3d 458, 458 [1st Dept 2007]).