White v. Codd, 49 N.Y.2d 571 (1980)

An order directing a public employer to pay an employee during a suspension pending disciplinary hearings is a final, appealable order when it resolves the specific issue of pay suspension, even if the disciplinary proceedings are ongoing.

Summary

This case addresses the finality of a court order in an Article 78 proceeding. White, a suspended employee, challenged the payless suspension. Special Term ordered that White’s suspension be with pay until the disciplinary hearing’s completion. The Appellate Division deemed this order non-final and thus non-appealable. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the order was indeed final because it resolved the specific issue before the court—the payless suspension—leaving only a ministerial act to be performed. The ongoing disciplinary hearing did not negate the order’s finality, as any challenge to the hearing’s outcome would require a separate Article 78 proceeding.

Facts

White was suspended from his employment. The suspension was without pay. White initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the payless aspect of his suspension. The disciplinary hearing on the charges against him was still pending before the commission.

Procedural History

The Special Term directed that White’s suspension be with pay pending the completion of the disciplinary hearing. The Appellate Division concluded the Special Term’s order was nonfinal. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the matter for a determination of the issue raised by the Article 78 proceeding.

Issue(s)

Whether an order directing that an employee’s suspension be with pay until the completion of a disciplinary hearing is a final, appealable order when the employee has initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the payless suspension.

Holding

Yes, because the Special Term resolved the entire proceeding regarding the payless suspension, leaving only a ministerial act of restoring the employee to the payroll. The Court stated, “Special Term, having ordered petitioner to be paid during the suspension, resolved the entire proceeding and no action other than the purely ministerial one involved in restoring petitioner to the payroll remained to be taken by the commission.”

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the order was final because it completely resolved the specific issue presented in the Article 78 proceeding: the legality of the payless suspension. The court emphasized that nothing further needed to be adjudicated regarding this specific issue; only a ministerial act (restoring White to the payroll) remained. The Court distinguished this situation from cases where further judicial action is required to resolve the entire dispute. The court cited prior cases like Matter of Board of Educ. v Nyquist, 48 NY2d 97 and Matter of Jerry v Board of Educ., 35 NY2d 534 to support the principle that an order can be final even if other aspects of the underlying dispute are still pending resolution. The Court explicitly stated, “The petition was one aimed only at challenging the payless suspension… Special Term, having ordered petitioner to be paid during the suspension, resolved the entire proceeding.” The court noted that any subsequent challenge to the disciplinary hearing’s outcome would necessitate a separate Article 78 proceeding, further solidifying the finality of the present order regarding the pay suspension.