PSYCHOLOGICAL DISQUALIFICATION
Government job applicants can be disqualified from employment for various reasons, including character (honesty and trustworthiness), medical (physical) and psychological (mental). Of all these, psychological disqualifications are the most challenging, and unfortunately, they also can be the most damaging to your future employment if not handled correctly. A psychological disqualification has the real potential to ruin your job opportunities.
Also unfortunate is the rate of psychological disqualification. As example, one New York law enforcement agency has reported that over a 14 year period it psychologically disqualified 27% of all job candidates who were evaluated. So for every 1,000 candidates, 270 were psychologically rejected. But that only is the average rate over 14 years; for 7 of those years the disqualification rate was 30%-34%.
Appealing a psychological disqualification involves a psychological or psychiatric expert witness who provides an opinion about your mental suitability for employment. Commonly, the opinion also highlights any disagreement that the expert has with the agency disqualification.
It is very important that the psychological expert have sufficient experience in the field of related disqualifications. As example, if you are a police candidate then you should obtain the services of a psychologist who has experience with police psychological disqualification appeals.
You also should consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable about your kind of case. Many legal issues arise in the preparation of appeals, and it is very unlikely that you or your psychologist will be able to deal with these properly. The best representation for you will occur when an experienced lawyer and psychologist work together.
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW,
MEDICAL REVIEW &
CHARACTER REVIEW
PSYCHOLOGICAL HOLD,
MEDICAL HOLD &
CHARACTER HOLD
Government employment candidates frequently are told that they are on "review" or "hold." Sometimes this occurs because the agency must gather more information about you before making a hiring decision. However, in many cases review and hold are just excuses to avoid giving any decision. This can happen when the agency does not wish to hire you, but also does not have a very strong reason to disqualify you.
Instead of issuing a disqualification which you can appeal---an appeal which you might win---the agency puts you on review. While on review, your Eligible List gets closer to expiring with each passing day, but you cannot appeal because there is no decision to appeal. In other words, you are left waiting until the Eligible List expires, after which time you cannot be hired.
This is a very abusive government practice, and it destroys your right to use the disqualification appeal process. Most unfortunate is that, by the time some candidates realize what has been done to them, it is too late to get legal help.
You should be in contact monthly with your investigator so that you are up-to-date about your employment application status. If you are told that you are on review or hold, then do not wait more than three months before seeking legal advice. With enough time remaining on the Eligible List, we may well be able to help you get off review or hold. Our office has done this many times for many job candidates.
MEDICAL DISQUALIFICATION &
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
If you are disqualified for a civil service job based upon a medical condition, you may want to consider filing a complaint with the New York City Human Rights Commission, instead of an appeal with the New York City Civil Service Commission. The main reason for this is that, while the Human Rights Commission process takes much longer than the Civil Service Commission process, your case before the Human Rights Commission could be much more likely to win. Also, a money award may be gotten from the Human Rights Commission, while such awards never are given by the Civil Service Commission.
Before taking any action on a medical appeal, you should contact an experienced attorney to discuss your options and determine which course is the best for your particular case.
NOTICE OF PROPOSED DISQUALIFICATION
& NOTICE OF DISQUALIFICATION
For many years, when a New York City agency wanted to disqualify you from employment, it would issue a "Notice of Disqualification" which could be appealed to the Civil Service Commission. However, this procedure was not correct under the Civil Service Law, which requires that candidates be told in advance why they are going to be disqualified, and be offered an opportunity to argue against a disqualification before it becomes final.
The Civil Service Commission advised agencies some years ago that they were not following the law, and the result is the "Notice of Proposed Disqualification" (NOPD). It notifies you that you have 30 days to ask the agency to "reconsider" the proposal to disqualify. Only after receiving your reconsideration appeal and supporting evidence will the agency then issue you a final decision; usually a Notice of Disqualification.
In practice, all that has changed is that most of what you previously had to do when appealing a Notice of Disqualification, now is done when you receive an NOPD Instead of appealing a disqualification to the Civil Service Commission, now a reconsideration appeal is sent to the agency first, and after final disqualification you appeal to the Civil Service Commission.
Nevertheless, while only a minor change in procedure has occurred, there is an important consequence: If you wait until the NOPD process is over before getting good legal counsel, you may have hurt your appeal. This is because all supporting papers and other evidence must be presented to the agency during the NOPD process. After that, when the agency issues a final disqualification, the "administrative record" is closed, and any new evidence you try to submit to the Civil Service Commission can be "inadmissible." So if you do not put your best foot forward during the NOPD process—using all evidence and legal resources available—then the case may be defective when it goes to the Commission. Many people learn this lesson late and hard.
In almost all instances, good attorneys can make a case better and stronger than the client could have done on their own. You may understand some of the good evidence in your case, and medical experts should be able to identify relevant medical issues. But almost always, you will overlook helpful legal points, or worse, you will use evidence that actually hurts your case. Also, you might assume that your case is "good enough" to win, and decide that you will call a lawyer only if you lose the NOPD appeal. But by then, the damage has been done. The best course is to contact counsel immediately upon receiving a Notice of Proposed Disqualification, or any other negative notice from an agency.
RIGHT TO OBTAIN PSYCHOLOGICAL FILE
If you are a New York government employment candidate who was disqualified for medical reasons, the New York Public Health Law provides that you have the right to obtain a copy of your medical file from the government agency. As example, a Police Officer candidate denied employment for psychological reasons has the right to get a copy of his psychological file.
Unfortunately, most agencies violate this law and refuse to release file copies to candidates. Usually the file is released only to a doctor who is assisting the candidate with a disqualification appeal, and the government directs the appeal doctor not to give the file to anyone else. That direction is wrong, but many doctors are scared by the warning and will not release the file to the candidate or even the candidate’s lawyer.
Nonetheless, the law is clear and it has been upheld in court. Disqualified candidates have the right to obtain a copy of their medical file, and they can enforce that right by going to court.
PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVIEW PREPARATION &
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION PREPARATION
Almost all police and public safety agencies will screen you for psychological suitability, and usually this involves three steps. First, questions about personal history. Second, psychometric tests (including the MMPI-2-RF and Cornell Index) and questionnaires. And third, a psychological interview; sometimes more than one.
You can make serious mistakes at all levels. With psychometric testing, the usual mistake is answering questions in a way that you believe will make you look better. But since the tests are geared to measure such "faking good," the result is a test score which hurts you. So the best advice regarding these tests simply is to answer all questions honestly.
However, far more important than test scores is your performance during the psychological interview. The interview is the culmination of the entire psychological evaluation process, and if you do poorly, then your fate is sealed. No amount of good personal history or test scores will compensate for a bad interview. Unfortunately, few candidates know how to present themselves well, and very often make significant errors that lead to disqualification.
Since candidates usually have no experience with psychological interviews, the failure rate is not surprising. And in New York City, the failure rate is higher than the national average. This means that the chance of psychological disqualification is greater than most other places, and many candidates who never imagine that they will be disqualified receive a nasty surprise in the mailbox.
Keep in mind, you do not need to have a mental illness to be disqualified, and disqualified candidates usually have no mental condition at all. What they almost always have in common is that they did badly during the interview.
The good news is that you can be well prepared for a psychological interview, but only if you are counseled by someone who understands the process---such as an attorney with many years experience in psychological disqualification cases. Just like taking an S.A.T. prep course, or a class that teaches job interview skills, you can learn how to handle a psychological interview also. Some candidates who received counseling later remarked about how easy the psychological interview seemed, and how difficult it would have been without preparation.
Do not "cast your fate to the wind" and pray for a good outcome. Maximize your chances of success by being prepared for the psychological evaluation.
ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING
The New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) gives you the right to sue a government agency for various reasons, and many cases involve Article 78 of the CPLR.
An Article 78 proceeding is used, among other reasons, when you want to challenge a government agency decision, or force an agency to do something. As example, when an agency issues a bad decision about you, usually it can be challenged in court under Article 78. Or, the agency might be refusing to issue a decision at all. To force the agency to act, you can use an Article 78 proceeding.
However, you must use all available agency procedures before filing an Article 78. This means that any internal agency appeals, or other available appeals, must be used before going to court. If those procedures are not used, then you lose the right to file an Article 78.
Also, you must usually file the Article 78 proceeding within four months of the final agency determination. This means that once the agency has made its final decision about you, an Article 78 must be filed within four months of the date of that decision.
The four month period is not 120 days, as many attorneys (and even some judges) mistakenly believe. Four months means the same day in the month four months later. As example, if the government notice is dated June 5th, then the four month Article 78 filing deadline is October 5th, not 120 days later on October 3rd. If the deadline month does not have the same numbered last day as the date of the government notice, then the deadline is the last day of the deadline month. As example, if the government notice is dated the last day of December, December 31st, then the Article 78 deadline is April 30th, because April does not have 31 days.
Additionally, if the deadline date falls on a weekend or legal holiday, the deadline is extended to the next business day. As example, if the deadline falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the deadline becomes Monday, unless Monday is a legal holiday, in which case the deadline becomes Tuesday.
Whatever the deadline date, as you can see, the Article 78 filing period only is a few months, and if your case is not filed by the deadline then usually you lose the right to go to court. This is called being "time barred." So it is very important that you contact an attorney as soon as you receive any unfavorable decision from an agency, or as soon as you realize that the agency is refusing to give you a decision. This is so you can find out if any agency appeals must be used, and also to make sure that your Article 78 time deadline is not missed.
PORT AUTHORITY DISQUALIFICATION
Employment disqualifications from city and state agencies in New York routinely are appealed to various civil service commissions. However, disqualifications from public authorities, like the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, are not covered by the Civil Service Law, and so cannot be appealed. This is because the Port Authority is not an agency of either New York or New Jersey, but an entirely separate entity created by agreement between both states.
The Port Authority acts, essentially, like an independent government, and has vast powers normally exercised only by a state. It is for this reason that such public authorities commonly are referred to as "shadow governments," and the laws which apply to city and state agencies often do not apply to authorities. The result is that job disqualifications from the Port Authority ordinarily cannot be successfully challenged. The only exception is perhaps a rare case of civil rights violation, where a Federal lawsuit might be filed.
However, while Port Authority employment disqualifications usually cannot be challenged, the candidate still has a right to obtain the reasons for the disqualification, which are contained in the Authority’s employment investigation file. As example, a candidate disqualified for psychological reasons has a right to obtain a copy of the psychological file. A demand for the file must be made, and if the Authority refuses to release the file, an Article 78 court proceeding can be used to compel release.
Candidates interested in obtaining such files should contact an attorney as soon as the candidate receives notice of a Port Authority disqualification.
NEW YORK GUN ARREST
HANDGUN ARREST
ASSAULT WEAPON ARREST
KNIFE ARREST
AIRPORT ARREST
New York weapon laws are different from most other places, and the gun laws truly are terrifying. Your mere possession of a loaded handgun, with no criminal intent at all, results in a mandatory 5-15 year prison sentence upon conviction. Further, almost every case of unlicensed handgun possession now is a felony offense, including possession in the home which formerly only was a misdemeanor.
This is true also for rifle and shotgun possession, particularly if your gun meets the definition of an "assault weapon." Many rifles and shotguns which are legal most everywhere else are considered assault weapons in New York, and the same mandatory sentence applies as with handguns. Additionally, gun magazines are included in the felony category if they can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Knives too are criminalized in New York, and the knife statute is so vague that carrying almost any knife is chargeable as a crime. In New York City, your carrying even a simple pocket knife can result in arrest.
If you are unaware, you unknowingly can be ensnared by these laws, and many people traveling with guns at airports and by car are arrested regularly. You would be shocked by the severe penalties, and become even more shocked when facing a prosecutor determined to obtain a jail sentence, even though you were not aware of the law.
Your case will require representation by counsel experienced with New York gun and weapon laws, and who understands every argument that can be raised for you against the government. In many cases, not only can police and prosecution errors be used as a defense, but also technical issues regarding weapon specification. A defense attorney must be skilled in all these areas to give you the greatest advantage. If you are charged with violating the firearm, pistol, rifle, shotgun, assault weapon or knife laws, please contact our office immediately.
SAFE ACT APPEAL, NICS AND
CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF
In 2013, the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (SAFE Act) was created, and one part of that law changed the New York Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) to require that certain people be reported to the State. If a mental health professional believes that you are “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others,” then you must be reported to the State, and once reported you lose your right to own firearms.
Also, when New York puts you into the State MHL reporting system, you will not be able to buy a gun legally, and if you go to a gun store and try to purchase a firearm, the FBI National Instant Check System (NICS) will deny the purchase.
The reporting system has been severely criticized, and rightfully, because mental health providers and hospitals routinely report people who are not a threat to anyone. Doctors and hospitals are frightened that if a person they treat later harms themself or another person, then the doctor or hospital will be blamed for not reporting. And so, people are being reported, and are losing their gun rights, even when they are not dangerous.
The only way to restore your rights is by getting a Certificate of Relief from Disabilities. When that Certificate is issued by New York, FBI NICS then no longer should deny gun purchases. However, the Certificate of Relief process has many steps, and must be completed carefully so that you can have the greatest chance of getting back your rights.
NEW YORK ASSAULT WEAPON LAW BOOK
Mr. Levine's latest book, New York Assault Weapon Laws, has been published by LawTech Publications Company and now is available for purchase. The book contains detailed analysis of the New York assault weapon law, various local assault weapon codes, gun-related terminology, and is heavily illustrated with many photographs. It is a must-have resource for persons interested in this very complex and confusing legal subject.
The book can be purchased by using the order form below, or by telephoning LawTech Publications at 212-482-8830. The cost is $49.95 which includes tax and shipping.
An online review of the book by TheGunMag.com can be viewed at:
http://www.thegunmag.com/real-skinny-new-yorks-vaunted-assault-weapons-laws/
NEW YORK OPMC ATTORNEY
NEW YORK OPD ATTORNEY
MEDICAL LICENSE DEFENSE
MEDICAL LICENSE RESTORATION
PROFESSIONAL LICENSE DEFENSE
PROFESSIONAL LICENSE RESTORATION
Professional misconduct proceedings have become an ever-larger area of legal involvement in recent years. With the increased level of regulation in the medical and other professions, it was inevitable that government agencies responsible for overseeing professional conduct would initiate more regulatory actions. The results largely have been unwelcome in the professional community, for while a few dangerous actors have been removed from the scene, others who have engaged in relatively minuscule acts of misconduct---some unintentionally---have had the full weight of the government fall upon them.
It is most important that affected professionals seek guidance without delay from a professional misconduct attorney in any matters involving OPMC (Office of Professional Medical Conduct) or OPD (Office of Professional Discipline). Misconduct allegations frequently balloon into full-blown investigations, and this activity can be tremendously injurious to the operation of a professional practice. Government investigators rarely are concerned with the business interests of professionals, and will pursue misconduct cases with relentless tenacity. Any who doubt this need only ask a professional who has been the target of such an investigation.
Competent attorneys are available to help medical and other professionals in OPMC and OPD cases, but they are of use only when consulted, and are of most use when consulted early in the process.
RECENT DECISIONS FROM OATH
The following are summaries of recent decisions of the Administrative Law Judges at the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings.
(Note: These are not cases involving clients of Mr. Levine.)
PERSONNEL
A sanitation worker, who was found unconscious at work, was charged with possessing and being under the influence of drugs while on duty and being absent without leave. ALJ Ingrid M. Addison sustained the charges that respondent was under the influence while on duty but dismissed the absence charge. Termination of respondent’s employment was recommended, but because respondent’s problems appeared to have started following a line of duty injury, ALJ Addison suggested petitioner consider placing respondent on a leave of absence to allow him to return when fully rehabilitated. (Dep’t of Sanitation v. J.S., OATH Index No. 1530/19.)
A special officer was charged with using excessive force against a client at a City job center. Petitioner alleged that respondent kicked the client hard in the face and pulled the client’s arm when the client was already held in a prone position on the floor by several other officers. During a four-day trial, petitioner offered seven witnesses and respondent offered three. Respondent denied the allegations. ALJ Noel R. Garcia credited petitioner’s witnesses, found that respondent committed serious misconduct, and recommended termination of his employment. (Dep’t of Social Services [Human Resources Admin.] v. Greenfield, OATH Index No. 2742/18.)
An associate laboratory microbiologist was charged with twice accosting a fellow microbiologist and using inappropriate, aggressive and threatening language to the co-worker. During trial, petitioner presented the testimony of four employees. Respondent testified on her own behalf and denied having used any inappropriate or aggressive language. ALJ Addison found petitioner’s witnesses credible and sustained the charges. Taking into consideration respondent’s long service with the Department, ALJ Addison recommended a penalty of 40 days’ suspension without pay and with credit for time served, pre-trial. (Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene v. DeGrasse, OATH Index No. 1863/19.)
LICENSING
A pedicab driver was charged with soliciting passengers in an unauthorized area and with recklessly operating his pedicab. Two officers testified that when they approached respondent, he ignored an order to stop and started to pedal away. One officer’s equipment became entangled with the pedicab’s wheel. Respondent continued to pedal and dragged the officer. Respondent claimed that he did not notice that his pedicab dragged the officer. ALJ Casey found that the pedicab driver operated his pedicab recklessly and endangered the officer. He ordered a revocation of respondent’s pedicab license and respondent to pay a $375 fine. (Dep’t of Consumer and Worker Protection v. Greenberg, OATH Index No. 1309/19.)
A taxi driver tested positive for the use of marijuana and petitioner sought to revoke his license. Respondent raised the affirmative defense of innocent ingestion, claiming that he ate a piece of cake from his friend’s refrigerator and did not know that the cake contained marijuana until after he failed the drug test. ALJ Susan J. Pogoda found that respondent failed to present credible and sufficient evidence to establish that he unknowingly ingested marijuana, a controlled substance, and recommended revocation of his license. (Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Bangre, OATH Index No. 1265/19.)
A taxi driver who was tested positive for marijuana use successfully raised innocent ingestion defense. At trial, respondent’s cousin testified and admitted to have given respondent marijuana-laced candy without informing respondent. Based on the corroborated testimony and strong supporting evidence, ALJ Joycelyn McGeachy-Kuls found that respondent established he unknowingly ingested marijuana and recommended dismissal of the charge. (Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Jiang, OATH Index No. 2102/19.)
Holders of taxi base license, street-hail permit, and for-hire vehicle licenses were found to have employed a driver with a suspended drivers’ license and no valid chauffeur’s license. Based on the undisputed evidence from an undercover investigator, ALJ John B. Spooner recommended revocation of the licenses and an aggregated fine of $3,050. (Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Columbia Street Limousine Service, Inc., OATH Index No. 2279/19.)
EARNED SAFE and SICK TIME ACT
A law firm and its founding partner were charged with violating the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (“ESSTA”), when it fired an employee allegedly for exercising his rights under ESSTA, required him to provide details of his medical condition, and failed to maintain a sufficient sick leave policy. ALJ Kevin F. Casey found that the employee’s use or attempted use of his sick time was one of the motivating factors for his firing and he did not credit the firm’s claim that the termination was for non-medical reasons. The firm’s founding partner was found to be jointly liable for the violations. Respondents were ordered to pay a fine of $1,500 and $172,215.30 relief to the ex-employee. Dep’t of Consumer and Worker Protection v. Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, OATH Index No. 514/19.)
STATEMENT ON RACISM
Below is Mr. Levine’s statement on racism in civil service cases and client representation:
“Over nearly thirty years of legal practice, I have seen all kinds of client reactions to the way that cases are resolved. When clients win their cases, obviously they are very happy. But even when they do not prevail, usually they understand the situation. They can accept that nothing is guaranteed, they did their best, and they are able to move on. However, some clients do not deal with loss very well; either loss of a case, or, being turned down for representation.
My first experience with this was many years ago, when I began my law practice. A man who had served a long prison term for attempted murder called my office seeking representation. He had tried to adopt a child from the New York City Administration for Children’s Services, but because of his criminal conviction ACS denied his application. He called my office thinking that ACS could be challenged successfully in court.
I advised the man that ACS had tremendous discretion to determine if a person was a suitable parent, and that there was no judge in the courthouse that would disagree with their decision. After much time trying, over and over, to explain why he would be wasting his money on a lawsuit, the man said that I was ‘part of the white power structure trying to keep the black man down.’
What I learned in that moment is that no matter how hard one tries to give good professional advice, what one says may not be what someone else hears. It seemed ridiculous to me that anybody would assume that my legal advice and business practices had anything to do with race; why would a business turn away customers? But if a person has race on their mind, everything they hear goes through that filter first. And I have learned since then that there are more than few people with race filters installed as standard equipment.
People usually have substantial reasons for why they think the way that they do, and so I cannot criticize why a person perceives things in a particular way. But, it can present problems; sometimes very big problems. For instance, if a client hears my firm instruction that he be truthful and honest, as if it were an accusation based on perceived racism, then there is a serious problem in the professional relationship. Similarly, a client might be very resistant to hearing advice they do not like. A good example of this is the client who absolutely is convinced that the government treated them in a racist manner, when in fact there is an entirely legitimate explanation (e.g., client claims he was terminated from employment due to racism, but the client has a demonstrated history of employment misconduct).
So while some clients feel that they are victims of racism because of a lawyer’s reaction to their story, what probably happened is that they simply did not like the reaction, and they assumed that it was due to racism.
On the subject of government racism in civil service cases, I can say the following: In all my years of practice, almost never have I had a case where a client was denied employment, was disciplined in employment or was terminated from employment based on anything racial. And while my experience does not mean that there is no racism in government operations, it probably means that race-based employment decisions occur far less often than some people think, particularly in a place like New York City. As evidence, consider that my office has represented many hundreds of clients, and counseled thousands more, for about three decades.
However, what does exist are employment disqualifications based on unfair policing practices that many people perceive as racist. This occurs where the client has a minor arrest record because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Police use various arrest tactics to target high-crime areas, mostly in non-white neighborhoods. Some arrests are random, while in other cases entire blocks are sealed off and police then arrest everyone in sight. (This practice is unconstitutional, but the courts allow it anyway.)
The police have their reasons for such actions, but many people caught in these “sweeps” are falsely charged with a minor offense so that they can be processed through the booking system, creating a database of identities. Ultimately, their cases are dismissed in court, but they are left with an arrest record, and when they later apply for a government job, such as police officer, they are disqualified for bad character.
Of course, this type of job denial is extremely unfair, and it is particularly outrageous to hear a police department defend such a case on grounds that the department did nothing wrong. The government prefers to lie, and protect its false image, than to overlook the wrongful arrest and hire the candidate.
There is a word for that, but it is not racism; the word is dishonest. The candidate is not being discriminated against because of race, but because the agencies do not want to acknowledge their own wrongdoing. That is not racism, it is dishonesty.
Thus, the result of all our experience is that, if someone wants to make an allegation of racism, as with any kind of allegation, there must be proof. Suspicions or feelings alone do not justify an accusation. And there are even court rules under which lawyers and clients can be punished for making baseless claims. So when a lawyer is unwilling to make a claim of racism because there is no proof, it does not mean they are racist. The lawyer is just being a good lawyer.”
WEAPONS EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED
AFTER ILLEGAL POLICE SEARCH
A man whose car was stopped by Police in Westchester County, New York, was found in possession of various weapons and was arrested. The weapons were seized when, upon learning that the man had a Colorado concealed handgun license, Police wrongly assumed that the existence of the license justified searching the vehicle. But a County Court Judge suppressed all evidence seized from the vehicle, meaning that the weapons could not be used as evidence against the Defendant. The ruling effectively killed the prosecution case.
The Decision and Order can be read at the following site:
https://www.scribd.com/document/395819281/People-v-Jonathan-Rose-Ind-No-17-0750-Decision-and-Order
A BRIEF HISTORY OF
NYPD GUN LICENSE CORRUPTION
In 2018, NYPD Deputy Inspector James Grant and businessman Jeremy Reichberg were tried in Federal Court on charges including that Reichberg had paid bribes to Grant in exchange for pistol licenses. Grant was acquitted by the jury, but Reichberg was found guilty and in 2019 was sentenced to 48 months in prison. Even though Grant walked free, the trial proved that bribes had been paid, and this placed yet another dark stain on the NYPD. As New York Post editorial writer Eric Sanders noted, “Acquittal or no, the NYPD has shown it can be bought.”
That case was only one of many chapters in a decades-long history of corruption and bribery involving pistol licenses.
There were no handgun restrictions in New York until the 1911 Sullivan Act, when the carrying and ownership of handguns became licensed. In New York City, licenses are issued by the Police Commissioner through the NYPD License Division, and if the License Division does not believe that an applicant is worthy, it has virtually unlimited authority to deny a license application.
Such a system, in theory, can be enforced fairly, but in reality it is not. Not only is the system Byzantine — the current application form, without supporting documentation, can be more than 20 pages — decisions about carry licenses have been unfair for decades. Many news articles have reported the names of the rich, famous and well-connected who received carry licenses, while average citizens usually could not.
This discretionary scheme invites bias and corruption, and the Sullivan Act was criticized at inception for really being intended to prevent Italian immigrants from getting guns, and for giving special treatment to certain persons. It is no surprise that such a system led to favoritism and bribery, and what follows here is just a partial list of wrongdoing:
1970: Police Officer Frank Serpico revealed widespread NYPD corruption, which led to the formation of the Knapp Commission. Among other things, the Commission heard reports that Police were bribed for pistol licenses. In response, NYPD moved licensing from the precincts to Police Headquarters, perhaps believing that the agency could keep a better eye on things under one roof. What was created instead was a convenient one-stop-shop for corruption.
1973: Captain Salvatore Salmieri was suspended without pay for issuing a pistol license to Joseph Sternfeld, the driver of gangster Thomas Eboli, and for lying about the matter. Eboli was the leader of the Genovese crime family for many years, until he was murdered in 1972.
1973: Police Officer Jack Werner was indicted for receiving bribes to “expedite and facilitate” the issuance of pistol permits.
1975: Acting on earlier reports to the Knapp Commission, Special Prosecutor Maurice Nadjari presented evidence to a grand jury that Police Officers and their superiors had received bribes for pistol licenses. Over 100 people were subpoenaed, and the proceeding was interesting, at one point featuring testimony from a stripper who used the stage name “Little Egypt.” However, Nadjari had limited success, and some of the likely guilty parties walked away untouched.
1996: Deputy Inspector Charles Luisi allegedly got hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from a gun dealer believed to have ties to the highest levels of the NYPD. State and Federal prosecutors investigated, but whether Luisi exerted influence over gun licenses never was answered publicly. The Department Internal Affairs Bureau failed to file disciplinary charges against Luisi before he retired, but in a later court trial between the gun dealer and his wife, the wife alleged, among other things, that her husband had used his NYPD connections to have her held against her will in a hotel room for three days by Detectives. Luisi was called to testify, but he took the Fifth.
1997: Deputy Inspector Henry Krantz was accused of corruption and his License Division office was raided by IAB. Departmental charges were filed, including that Krantz had given “preferential treatment to individuals or entities” and had been “wrongfully directing” other Officers to grant favors.
Krantz signed a plea agreement, under which he paid a $10,000 fine, was demoted to Captain and was allowed to retire. Even that disposition perhaps was favoritism, because some believed Krantz was not prosecuted to avoid his telling all that he knew. Others involved were transferred to different duties.
2002: Deputy Inspector Benjamin Petrofsky was accused of giving favored treatment to Aerosmith band members who applied for pistol licenses. Petrofsky allegedly did this for VIP treatment at an Aerosmith concert, and a limousine ride to the after-party. Among other things, Petrofsky was accused of personally going to Madison Square Garden to fingerprint the band members for their license applications.
The Manhattan District Attorney examined whether Petrofsky got “illegal benefits.” Ultimately, he was demoted to Captain and placed on Dismissal Probation.
2016 to Present: The Mother-of-All gun license scandals began when Federal investigators, probing supporters of Mayor Bill DeBlasio, uncovered a bribery extravaganza.
Federal prosecutors charged businessman Alex Lichtenstein with bribery after he, essentially, bought carry licenses for cash. Lichtenstein reportedly bragged that he got 150 licenses, charging his clients $18,000 apiece, which if accurate would total $270,000. One license recipient had a record including domestic violence complaints and “a threat against someone’s life.”
Lichtenstein pled guilty in 2016, and admitted bribing NYPD Sergeant David Villanueva of the License Division. Lichtenstein was sentenced to 32 months in prison.
Sgt. Villanueva pled guilty in 2017 to charges that he accepted bribes, and awaits sentencing. He admitted to helping over 100 people get licenses that never should have been approved, including an applicant who may have had ties to organized crime. Based upon his vast knowledge of corruption in the License Division, Villanueva became the star witness for Federal prosecutors, and his testimony advanced numerous criminal cases.
One case was the 2018 trial and conviction of former Brooklyn Assistant District Attorney John Chambers. Chambers, who for years billed himself as the top gun license attorney in New York, was convicted in Federal Court of bribery and other charges. He was sentenced to 1 year in prison.
Villanueva also testified at D.I. Grant’s trial, where a bombshell inference was raised by Grant’s attorney. The attorney asked Villanueva if he had knowledge about Police Commissioner James O’Neill, when he was the Chief of Patrol, intervening to help a former Playboy Playmate obtain a pistol license that previously she had been denied. However, the attorney’s question never was answered as the prosecutor objected, and after a sidebar conference with the judge the matter was dropped.
Yet another NYPD Officer who was charged by Federal prosecutors is Lieutenant Paul Dean, who pled guilty in 2018 to conspiracy to commit bribery. He was sentenced in 2019 to 18 months in prison, a $7,500 fine, and was required to forfeit a $1,000 bribe he received.
In his pre-sentencing memo to the Court, Dean claimed to have knowledge of enormous corruption involving numerous persons, including a scheme that extended pistol license bribery into neighboring Nassau County. As alleged by Dean, essentially, Sgt. Salvatore Mistretta, the former commanding officer of the Nassau County Police Department, Pistol License Section, would grant licensing favors in exchange for similar favors in New York City. No charges have been filed against anyone at the NCPD, however, Dean’s allegation at least partially was corroborated during the earlier trial of attorney John Chambers. In that case, Sgt. Villanueva testified that he used his good relationship with the Nassau licensing office to obtain favors for clients of Chambers. Villanueva also testified that Chambers sent him an email stating, “If we play our cards right, you could potentially be looking at an extra $10,000 in cash in a 12-month period just for being my consultant in Nassau County.”
Others who were charged at NYPD include Police Officer Robert Espinel, accused in 2017 of conspiracy to commit bribery and extortion. He pled guilty in 2019 to the conspiracy charge, and was sentenced to a year and a day in prison and a $5,000 fine. Retired Detective Gaetano Valastro was charged with conspiracy to commit bribery and is awaiting trial. Also, Police Officer Richard Ochetal pled guilty to charges of bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery.
The differences between the most recent scandal and most of the others are, first, criminal charges were filed, and second, people went to jail. The NYPD could not merely transfer, demote or retire the employees who committed crimes. In other words, they could not sweep it under the rug. Not that time, because there was a serious Federal investigation with real teeth, the truth (though not all) was exposed, and a meaningful price was paid for what Federal prosecutor Kimberly J. Ravener referred to as a “period of rampant corruption.”
Would it change anything? Yes, for a while. As in past cases of bribery, the License Division was administratively reorganized, and the public was told that the same thing could not happen again. The first time NYPD gave that assurance probably was around the same time the White Star Line announced that the Titanic was “practically unsinkable.” The NYPD’s assurances have been just as reliable.
An additional change was no change all, but yet another return to the traditional Reign of Terror cancellations, particularly with carry licenses. After each corruption scandal became public, the NYPD sought insulation from future scandal by cancelling existing carry licenses, and refusing to issue new licenses. The agency thus applied an administrative version of Stalinist reasoning: Where there is no license, there is no problem. The victims have been, as always, the licensees and license applicants.
However, all of the changes ultimately, as ever before, will prove useless. In 10-15 years, after the dust long has settled, someone who knows someone, who knows someone else, will use those connections to grease the system again. Even though most License Division employees are not crooked, the discretionary licensing system provides very fertile soil for corruption. A strong incentive for bribery always exists, and bribes will occur. That is, unless the incentive is removed, and there are two ways to do that.
The first is to end the unfair system of discretionary licensing and let people with clean records, and proper instruction, receive carry licenses. But do not hold your breath. New York would rather have endless corruption than let citizens regain their rights, because New York government hates the Second Amendment.
The other way is that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide that the bearing of arms is a right as fully protected as the keeping of arms. In 2008, the Court ruled that keeping arms was a fundamental, individual constitutional right. If the Court extends that reasoning to bearing (carrying) arms, then the discretionary licensing systems in many States will crumble. The Court probably never will rule that gun licensing, alone, is unconstitutional. But it easily can rule that a discretionary system denies Second Amendment rights to many citizens, and thus violates the Constitution.
Until one of these remedies occurs, we need only count the days until the next gun license bribery scandal.
NYPD INSIDER SAYS GUN PERMITS
DENIED FOR TRAFFIC TICKETS
From THE DAILY CALLER - August 29, 2018
The New York City Police Department’s gun licensing division — according to a former employee with knowledge of the office — pulled back on the number of carry permits the division issues and found more reasons to deny applicants their gun permits.
Following the eruption of a bribery and corruption scandal in the gun licensing division of the city that first surfaced two years ago, five individuals, including now former NYPD officers and a city official have been charged with fast-tracking New York City gun licenses for certain applicants through bribery schemes.
“So now, it’s really swung the pendulum swung the other way, and in a bad way, because now I’m hearing hardly anybody is getting approved for a carry. Hardly anybody,” the source told The Daily Caller. “If anything, they’re getting [limited carrys], if at all, anything.”
Local law enforcement officials say New York Newsday reported last year that more than 100 gun licenses were expedited through these schemes. Two weeks ago, the division’s former second in command, Paul Dean, a former lieutenant for the NYPD, pled guilty to committing bribery. According to The Daily Caller’s former NYPD employee source, not only was that lieutenant “taking money” to fast-track licenses; others in the division were doing so, as well.
“The lieutenant is going to jail. The lieutenant was taking money. The sergeant — they were all selling licenses, allegedly. This [new] guy, here, he’s got a tight rein on the place.”
The commanding officer at the division is Inspector Michael Barreto, who was appointed by Police Commissioner Bill Bratton to head up the office after the scandal broke in 2016.
According to the former NYPD source, Barreto decided the division would begin to deny carry permits based on what he believes to be bad driving records and late child support payments, which Baretto related to “good moral character,” the source said.
“Now, they added a driver’s license suspension check. And now it’s driver’s license summons check. They added the fact that you now have to, at your own expense, supply them a [driver’s] license — to the license division — a lifetime abstract of your driver’s license,” said the former NYPD employee, noting that excessive minor traffic violations are being seriously considered when a gun permit is being issued.
“He added the parking summonses. He added the moving summonses … Now, you have to now explain why you got four summonses or three summonses when you were 19. Maybe you got a speeding summons in Texas.”
The former employee also said the gun division could have issues with a carry applicant if that individual owes at least three months of back child support.
“[Barreto] is making his own rules. He’s making his own laws and the higher-ups are just letting him because they feel it’s better than our previous bad press.”
The Daily Caller sent an inquiry related to the claims made by this former employee to the NYPD’s Public Information Office and is waiting on a response.
NEW YORK REPEALS ONE KNIFE LAW
AND ADDS ANOTHER
Amendments to Penal Law § 265.01 have eliminated an old criminal prohibition, and added a new one. The Legislature repealed the ban on possessing a "gravity knife," and created the crime of possessing an "undetectable knife." The repeal took effect May 30, 2019, and the new ban is effective November 1, 2019.
GRAVITY KNIVES NOW LEGAL
A gravity knife releases a blade vertically from the handle when a lever is pressed, and the handle held downward. The blade falls into position by gravity, unassisted by any spring. The lever then is manipulated to lock the blade into position. The design was used with airborne troops during WWII, because the knife can be safely carried with the blade inside the handle, thus avoiding an accidental stabbing upon landing with a parachute.
Gravity knives became a target of New York legislators likely because they are manipulated one-handed, similar to another demonized device, the switchblade; though why such designs are objectionable, when a fixed-blade knife does not need any manipulation, is an ongoing question.
Additionally, New York law does not accurately describe how a gravity knife works, and defines it as "any knife which has a blade which is released…by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force…." The troubling language is “application of centrifugal force,” because courts have interpreted this to mean that if the knife can open with a flick of the wrist, it is a gravity knife.
The wrist-flick test criminalized the possession of every ordinary pocket knife that could be flicked open in the manner used by many school-age boys: holding the edge of the blade between the thumb and first finger, and then flicking the knife handle away from the blade, thus causing the knife to open. Again, this is not how a gravity knife works, but it fits the New York definition, and has resulted in some humorous courtroom demonstrations by government witnesses. However, a recent case in the Southern District prompted the Legislature to repeal the law.
In Cracco v. Vance, the Court ruled: "[T]he gravity knife statute’s purpose -- to prohibit the possession of dangerous weapons used to perpetrate crimes -- supports the conclusion that the statute is vague…. The statute was not intended to criminalize the possession of the type of ordinary folding knife that Cracco possessed, which are commonly used by cooks, craftsmen, and laborers to perform their job functions; it was intended to criminalize knives used by criminals in New York City. The Court cannot conclude that the gravity knife statute provided 'an ordinary person with sufficient notice of or the opportunity to understand what conduct is prohibited or proscribed.'"
Cracco was the beginning of the end for the gravity knife law, and the repeal is long-awaited relief for the many people who carry pocket knives, particularly in New York City where strictest application of the old law was a religion among authorities.
But any joy must be tempered because the City is objecting, and intends to enforce a different restriction against knife carrying.
The New York Code of Rules and Regulations prohibits and punishes carrying a "weapon, dangerous instrument, or any other item intended for use as a weapon," in or on any facility or conveyance of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. If the City proceeds as announced, then knife possession on any MTA subway, bus or at any MTA facility could be a prosecutable offense, and this obviously would disaffect anyone using public transportation.
Thus, it may remain for future court action, or more legislation, to determine just how effective the Legislature’s recent amendments will be; at least in New York City.
SOME NON-METAL KNIVES ARE BANNED
Penal Law § 265.01(2) now adds an "undetectable knife" to the list of weapons banned, and § 265.00 adds a new section 5-d defining it as "any knife or other instrument, which does not utilize materials that are detectable by a metal detector or magnetometer when set at a standard calibration, that is capable of ready use as a stabbing or cutting weapon and was commercially manufactured to be used as a weapon." The provision is based on a similar California law.
The legislative history accompanying the Senate bill indicates, "In one instance, an undetectable knife was used in a Compton, California courtroom, where a defendant smuggled a ten-inch non-metallic knife past metal detectors and stabbed two bailiffs. These weapons present a severe security risk to any building that utilizes a metal detector for the prevention of violence or possible terrorist acts."
Some knives are made to fool metal detectors, while many others are not. The subversive kind usually are made from nylon or plastic, and the most well-known is sold under the name "CIA Letter Opener." They are not fully equal to metal knives of the same construction, but they can be sharpened, and are quite serviceable as stabbing weapons. The innocuous type of non-metal knives are ceramic kitchen knives. These are delicate and cannot take any abuse, but they too can be sharp.
However, the Legislature only has banned undetectable knives "commercially manufactured to be used as a weapon," and this means that the law was not intended to prohibit ceramic kitchen knives, but the type of knives purposely made to avoid detection.
Given the properties of these knives, their possession already violated the "any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon" provision of
§ 265.01. So it seems the real target of the Legislature, commercial trade, was hit by § 265.10, which prohibits manufacture, and transportation and shipment as merchandise. The legislative history addresses this point: "[T]he general public has access to the purchase of these weapons through online weapons distributors, print catalogues and other weapons outlets." Note that there is no mention of kitchen supply companies, but "weapons" suppliers.
Note as well that the prohibition is limited to a knife "which does not utilize materials that are detectable by a metal detector or magnetometer when set at a standard calibration." A knife which can evade an X-Ray machine alone is not prohibited, though this may be meaningless since all the items affected can be spotted by an X-Ray, though sometimes not easily. But the term "standard calibration" may see some litigating.
Where the knife is discovered after evading a metal detector or magnetometer, standard calibration may mean the standard for the machine that was evaded. But when the item is found without any machine search (e.g., stop-and-frisk), what machine will establish the standard? Certainly, a non-metal knife should not register on any metal detector. But for purposes of justifying a criminal charge, the question of what detector should have been used, and/or how it should have been used, probably will be litigated.
Nonetheless, and again, since § 265.01 also prohibits possession of generically dangerous weapons, a defendant’s win on the calibration issue probably will be an empty victory.
%20-%20Page%201%20JPEG%20Image.jpg)
