The opinion of the court was delivered by: GAGLIARDI
Plaintiff, formerly employed as an Assistant Architect by the City of New York Police Department ("the police department"), commenced this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that his due process rights were violated when he was dismissed from the police department by order of then Police Commissioner Codd on March 2, 1977. Plaintiff seeks reinstatement, back pay and annulment of the order of dismissal. Defendants, the Police Department and the Civil Service Commission of the City of New York ("the Civil Service Commission") move to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Since matters outside the pleadings, namely the administrative and state court records, must be considered on a motion of this kind, the motion sub judice will be treated as one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion is granted.
On January 6, 1977, the police department brought disciplinary charges against the plaintiff and suspended him from the department for a second time within a year. After several adjournments, a disciplinary hearing on these charges was held on February 10, 1977. Plaintiff failed to appear and the hearing took place in his absence. After evaluating the oral testimony and the exhibits introduced at the hearing, the hearing officer concluded that the charges were sustained by a preponderance of the credible evidence and recommended that the plaintiff be dismissed from the department. In accordance with this recommendation, Police Commissioner Codd dismissed the plaintiff on March 2, 1977. Although plaintiff alleges that he did not receive written notice of the police commissioner's decision until January 16, 1978 (complaint P 10), he wrote to the chairman of the Civil Service Commission on March 9, 1977 enclosing a number of exhibits and requesting the following relief:
(1) (t)hat the action of the Police Dept. in twice summarily suspending (his) services . . . be declared arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, illegal and improper; in violation of the Civil Service Law
(and) (3) (that the Civil Service Commission) review, vacate, and annul said suspension/dismissal; and to pay (him) the salary (he) would have earned . . . were (he) not improperly removed from (his) position, pursuant to Section 77 of the Civil Service Law.
(Plaintiff's Exh. 3). Plaintiff renewed his demands by letter dated May 25, 1977. On approximately May 1, 1978, the Civil Service Commission, apparently construing plaintiff's letters as an appeal pursuant to section 76(1) of New York's Civil Service Law,
affirmed the police department's decision.
By letter dated May 5, 1978, Nicholas LaPorte, Jr., the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission wrote to the plaintiff to inform him that "(after) a careful review of the testimony adduced at the (police) departmental hearing and based on the record in this case, the NYC Civil Service Commission finds no reversible error and affirms the penalty and decision imposed by the NYC Police Department." (Plaintiff's Exh. 4).
On April 14, 1978, while plaintiff's appeal to the Civil Service Commission was pending, plaintiff commenced an Article 78 proceeding in the Supreme Court, New York County. The petition filed in that proceeding, which did not directly seek review of the Civil Service Commissioner's decision,
contained two separate causes of action. The first alleged that the procedures that the police department used at plaintiff's disciplinary hearing did not comply with sections 75 and 76 of New York's Civil Service Law because, inter alia, Rothstein allegedly received neither a transcript of the disciplinary hearing nor timely written notice of the police department's decision. The second cause of action alleged that the same trial procedures also "violated petitioner's right to due process guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution." (Petition at 16). Police Commissioner McGuire, the sole respondent in that proceeding, moved to dismiss the petition. In a decision dated July 11, 1978, the Hon. Nathaniel T. Helman ruled that "under Civil Service Law 76(1) the petitioner's election to seek review by the Civil Service Commission rather than by the Court foreclosed (a state judicial) proceeding absent a showing of arbitrariness on the part of respondent."
(Defendants' Exh. A, citation omitted ). Implicitly finding no such arbitrariness on the part of the respondent, Justice Helman dismissed the petition. (Id.) The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed without opinion, and on July 9, 1979, the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. Plaintiff commenced this § 1983 action shortly thereafter.
The traditional formulation of the res judicata doctrine is that "a valid, final judgment, rendered on the merits constitutes a bar to a subsequent action between the same parties, or those in privity with them, . . . both as to issues actually litigated and determined in the first suit, and as to those grounds which might have been, but were not actually raised and decided in that action." Saylor v. Lindsley, 391 F.2d 965, 968 (2d Cir. 1968). Were this action to be measured against this standard alone, there would be little question that it would be barred by the plaintiff's previous state court litigation. First, the instant § 1983 complaint alleges the identical due process cause of action that furnished the basis for the state court proceeding. Point II of Rothstein's Article 78 petition alleged that the police commissioner's "trial procedures violated plaintiff's right to due process guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution" (Petition at 16). After quoting extensively from Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1972) and Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S. Ct. 780, 28 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1971), and reviewing the facts surrounding his dismissal from the police department, plaintiff reasoned that "(he) was not afforded "notice and opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case' as required under the authority of the above cited cases." (Petition at 6-7). See generally Ornstein v. Regan, 574 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1978); Newman v. Board of Education, 508 F.2d 277, 278 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 1004, 95 S. Ct. 1447, 43 L. Ed. 2d 762 (1975) ("allegation, elaborations, or citations of authority" are sufficient to raise claim for res judicata purposes). Among the specific trial procedures discussed were plaintiff's alleged failure to receive written notice of either the February 10, 1977 hearing or the hearing before the Civil Service Commission and his alleged failure to receive a transcript from the February 10th hearing. The identical claim is alleged in the plaintiff's 1983 complaint:
The holding of the hearing in abstentia served to deprive the plaintiff without due process of law of his statutory right, to a hearing pursuant to the Civil Service Law of the State of New York, Section 75(2). Although plaintiff had a statutory right to transcripts of the minutes of both disciplinary hearings, his requests for such transcripts were denied constituting (a) further deprivation of due process rights.
(Complaint P 19). Second, the parties to this action bear the requisite degree of identity to the parties before the state court for the res judicata doctrine to apply since the party against whom the estoppel is sought was a party to the state court action. As the Second Circuit summarized in Shore v. Parklane Hosiery Co., 565 F.2d 815, 818-19 (2d Cir. 1977) aff'd 439 U.S. 322, 99 S. Ct. 645, 58 L. Ed. 2d 552 (1979),
this court in Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944 (2d Cir. 1964), following the lead of Justice Traynor in Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.2d 807, 122 P.2d 892 (1942), dispensed with mutuality as a requirement, taking the view that a requirement of complete identity of parties serves no purpose as long as the person against whom the findings are asserted or his privy has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the identical issue in the prior action. Any lingering doubt in the matter was eliminated by the Supreme Court's decision in Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 91 S. Ct. 1434, 28 L. Ed. 2d 788 (1971), where the Court, citing Zdanok and Bernhard with approval, unanimously concluded that a determination of patent invalidity against a party in prior litigation was binding against it in a subsequent suit to enforce the patent against others.
Finally, there is no doubt that the judgment rendered in New York State Supreme Court was a final judgment "on the merits" for the purposes of res judicata. See Taylor v. New York City Transit Authority, 433 F.2d 665, 668 (2d Cir. 1970); see ...