A New York appellate court has reinstated Rosabel Antonetti to her position with the City of Rochester Police Accountability Board after ruling her termination was improper. The decision, made on October 2, 2026, affects Antonetti, who had been dismissed from her job due to alleged misconduct. The court's ruling highlights the importance of proper procedures in disciplinary actions against public employees.
The case, titled Matter of Antonetti v. City of Rochester, was filed under docket number 593 TP 26-00383. It involved a dispute over Antonetti's termination and her claims regarding the handling of her requests for public documents. The court's decision not only reinstates Antonetti but also emphasizes the need for transparency in government operations.
In this case, Antonetti was the petitioner challenging her termination by the City of Rochester Police Accountability Board. The respondents included the City of Rochester, the Police Accountability Board, and two officials, Dr. Shirley Green and Dr. Lesli Myers-Small. The dispute arose after a hearing officer, Dr. Green, found Antonetti guilty of misconduct and incompetence, leading to her dismissal.
The case reached the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court of Monroe County transferred it for review. Antonetti argued that the process leading to her termination was flawed and that her rights were violated during the disciplinary proceedings. She also raised concerns about the City’s responses to her Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests, claiming that many were improperly denied.
The court ruled that the termination of Antonetti from her position was annulled based on legal grounds. The judges involved in the decision included Bannister, Montour, Greenwood, Nowak, and Hannah. The court stated, "the determination is unanimously annulled on the law without costs to the extent that it terminated petitioner from her employment." This ruling reinstates Antonetti to her job with back pay, minus any unemployment benefits she received.
Furthermore, the court found that the disciplinary hearing conducted by Dr. Green lacked proper jurisdiction. According to Civil Service Law § 75 (2), a hearing must be held by the officer or body authorized to remove the employee. The court noted, "in the absence of a written delegation authorizing a deputy or other person to conduct the hearing, the removing board or officer has no jurisdiction to discipline an employee." This aspect of the ruling underscores the necessity for adherence to legal protocols in employee discipline.
The court also pointed out that Dr. Myers-Small should have recused herself from the final decision regarding Antonetti's termination. The ruling emphasized that when an officer is involved in initiating charges and testifying during a hearing, they must disqualify themselves from making the final determination. The court stated, "in the interest of fairness, must disqualify [themselves] from reviewing the Hearing Officer's recommendations and rendering a final determination."
This ruling has significant implications for public employees and their rights in disciplinary proceedings. It reinforces the need for government agencies to follow established legal procedures when terminating employees. The decision also highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in public sector employment.
Going forward, this ruling may set a precedent for similar cases involving public employee terminations in New York. It emphasizes that employees have the right to fair treatment and due process, particularly in cases involving disciplinary actions. The decision could influence how public agencies handle disciplinary hearings and the importance of proper documentation and delegation in such processes.
As for what’s next, the case may still have further proceedings in the Supreme Court of Monroe County regarding Antonetti's FOIL claims and any potential disciplinary actions that may arise in the future. The court has remitted the matter for an in-camera review of the requested documents, which means the court will privately examine the materials to determine if they should be disclosed. This aspect of the ruling ensures that Antonetti's concerns about transparency are addressed.