Background
Rosabel Antonetti worked for the City of Rochester Police Accountability Board. After a disciplinary hearing, a hearing officer found her guilty of misconduct and incompetence and recommended discipline. Dr. Lesli Myers-Small, acting as a board officer, adopted the findings and terminated Antonetti’s employment.
Antonetti brought a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the disciplinary determination. She also contested the city’s responses to several requests under the Freedom of Information Law, arguing that records had been withheld or redacted without adequate justification. Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division for review.
The case presented two structural Civil Service Law issues beyond the merits of the charges: whether the hearing officer had been validly authorized in writing under Civil Service Law § 75(2), and whether Myers-Small could make the final decision after initiating the charges and testifying at the hearing.
Those issues were distinct from whether the city had evidence supporting misconduct or incompetence. Section 75 supplies procedural protections to covered public employees, and the identity and authority of the officials conducting and deciding a hearing are part of that statutory framework. Antonetti argued that the process never acquired lawful footing and also lacked an impartial final reviewer.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Department annulled the termination, reinstated Antonetti with back pay reduced by unemployment benefits, and left the city free to pursue further proceedings. Section 75(2) requires a disciplinary hearing to be conducted by the officer or body with removal power, or by a deputy or another person whom that officer or body designates in writing. Without a qualifying written delegation, the hearing officer lacks jurisdiction to conduct the proceeding.
The record contained no written designation from the officer or body empowered to remove Antonetti. That omission was not a technical defect that could be overlooked after the hearing; it deprived the city of jurisdiction to impose the discipline based on that proceeding. The court therefore restored Antonetti to her position without reaching every challenge to the evidence or penalty.
The panel separately held that Myers-Small should have recused herself from reviewing the recommendation and deciding whether to terminate Antonetti. She initiated the charges, selected the hearing officer, and testified at the hearing, and the hearing officer credited and relied on that testimony. Basic fairness required a different official to perform the final review.
The Freedom of Information Law dispute was remitted for in camera review. Government records are presumptively available, and an agency must give a particularized and specific basis for an exemption. The appellate record did not permit a reliable decision about the withheld or redacted items, so Supreme Court must inspect them and determine the disclosure claims.
Key Takeaways
- Civil Service Law § 75 requires a written hearing-officer delegation from the official or body that actually holds removal power.
- An official who brings charges and gives material testimony generally cannot also review the hearing officer’s findings and make the final disciplinary decision.
- Agencies resisting a Freedom of Information Law request must justify withholding with record-specific explanations that permit judicial review.
Why It Matters
Antonetti is a direct compliance warning for New York municipalities, school districts, public authorities, and unions. Before a section 75 hearing begins, the employer should identify the lawful appointing or removing authority, obtain its written designation of the hearing officer, and preserve that document in the record. Informal authorization or an assumption that an administrator possesses authority may invalidate the entire proceeding.
Public employers should also separate investigative, testimonial, and adjudicative roles wherever possible. For employee counsel, threshold authority and recusal objections may provide relief independent of the substantive charges. The FOIL ruling reinforces the value of building a request-by-request record rather than relying on generalized exemption claims.
Reinstatement without prejudice to new proceedings means the ruling does not immunize the employee from discipline. It requires the employer to start from a lawful procedure and use an unbiased decisionmaker. Agencies should audit delegation forms and decision chains before charges are tried; unions and employee counsel should request those documents at the outset rather than waiting until judicial review.