‘At an IAS Ex Parte Motion Part of the ‘Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for New York County, at the Courthouse located at 60 Centre Street, in the Borough of Manhattan, City and State of New York, on the day of January, 2011 PRE ENT: HON. Tustice SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY JAMES R. DAVIS II, as President of the New York City Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, Supervising Deputy Sheriffs: Kyle Williams, John Schwartz, Cristina Mellado, and Deputy Sheriffs: Sergio Bocanumenth, Raimundo Esquilin, Abdel Abdallah, Ivan Santos, Courtney Skinner, Maria Devlin, Herman Williams, JR., Deidre Robinson, Steven Brown, Petitioners, For a Judgment and Order Pursuant to ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, WITH TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER - against- The City of New York, New York City Department of Finance, Index No.: and DAVID M. FRANKEL, as Finance Commissioner of the City of New York Department of Finance, Respondents, Upon the annexed Petition verified by James R. Davis III, president of the New York City Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, Memorandum of Law, and upon the exhibits annexed to the aforementioned Petition. LET THE RESPONDENTS SHOW CAUSE before Honorable atan IAS Term, Part __ of this Court the New York County Supreme Courthouse, located at 60 1Cenire Street, New York, New York on the day of January, 2011 at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, why an Order of Judgment should not be made and entered herein: (1) For a Judgment determining that the Respondents have acted arbitrarily and capriciously in notifying nine permanent deputy sheriffs that they will be laid off effective January 21, 2011; (2) For a Judgment determining that the Respondents had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in notifying three supervising deputy sheriffs that they will be demoted effective January 24,2011; (3) For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper; and it is further ORDERED, that Respondents’ Officials, employees, agents and all other persons in active concert or participation with them, be temporarily restrained, pending the hearing of the within motion, from: (1) Laying off, displacing, discharging, or demoting any New York City Deputy Sheriffs; and (2) Demoting any New York City Supervising Deputy Sheriffs; (3) Taking any adverse action against any of the Petitioners or union members in retaliation for their having brought this proceeding. ORDERED, that service of a copy of this Order to Show Cause and the papers on which it is granted, be made upon Respondent, City of New York, by personal service upon their attorney's office at Corporation Counsel, 100 Church Street, New York, New York and Respondent, David M.Frankel, as Finance Commissioner of the City of New York Department of Finance by overnight mail upon their office located at One Centre Street, Room 500, New York, New York 10007, on or before the __day of January 2011, and that such service be deemed sufficient. ENTER:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY JAMES R. DAVIS III, as President of the New York City Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, Supervising Deputy Sherifis: Kyle Williams, John Schwartz, Cristina Mellado, and Deputy Sheriffs: Sergio Bocanumenth, Raimundo Esquilin, Abdel Abdallah, Ivan Santos, Courtney Skinner, Maria Devlin, Herman Williams, JR., Deidre Robinson, Steven Brown, Petitioners, For a Judgment and Order Pursuant to VERIFIED PETITION Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, Index No.: - against- The City of New York, New York City Department of Finance, and DAVID M. FRANKEL, as Finance Commissioner of the City of New York Department of Finance, Respondent - The Petitioner, James R. Davis, II, by his attomeys, Kliegerman & Joseph, LLP, respectfully alleges as follows: 1. Petitioner, James R. Davis, lis the President of the Deputy Sheriffs Association with offices located at 2753 Coney Island Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11235. 2. The Union is certified to represent all uniformed civil service titles within the New York City Sheriff's office. 3. Kyle Williams, John Schwartz, and Cristina Mellado are New York City Supervising Deputy Sheriffs 4, Sergio Bocanumenth, Raimundo Esquilin, Abdel Abdallah, Ivan Santos, Courtney Skinner, Maria Devlin, Herman Williams, JR., Deidre Robinson, Steven Brown, are New York City Deputy Sheriff.THE FACTS 5. Onor about January 3, 2011, nine deputy sheriffs Petitioners received letters (see Exhibit A) informing each that he or she would be laid off effective January 21, 2011. 6. On or about January 3, 2011, three New York City supervising deputy sheriffs received letters stating that he or she would be demoted effective January 24, 2011. (Exhibit B) THE ARGUMENT 7, The decision with regard to which agencies would be effected by layofis or demotions, including which employees would be laid off, how many from each division, the relevant impact to public safety that would result by the various layouts, was made without reference to any empirical factors. 8. The decision in the instant case was made in large part by a new commissioner without any background in law enforcement or public safety. 9. Mayor Bloomberg when first announcing the layoffs indicated that the decrease would effect 5.4% of the effected Civil employees and 2.7% of effected Uniform employees. (see Exhibit “C”) 10. The New York City Sheriffs’ Office, which works under the auspices of the New York City Department of Finance, is scheduled to have nine deputy sheriffs laid off and three supervising deputy sheriffs demoted, There are one hundred and sixteen uniformed members of the Deputy Sheriffs Association. These twelve represent almost 11% of the work force. 11. Mayor Bloomberg on more than one occasion has recognized the law enforcement component of the Sheriffs’ Office as well as its public safety function. (see Exhibit “D”)12. The Department of Finance’s Commissioner has said “The Sheriff's role as Chief Enforcement Officer for the City is vital in protecting public safety, as well as the public's wallet." 13, Former Sheriff Lindsay Eason referred to the public safety and law enforcement aspect of the office when he recently retired. (See Exhibit “E”) 14, Local Law 56 specifically refers to deputy sheriff and supervising deputy sheriffs as having certain job characteristics similar to those of employees working in the City’s Uniformed Services, such as police, fire, sanitation and correction services. Those uniformed services mentioned. have been specifically exempt from layofis by the City of New York. (See Exhibit “F”) 15, Deputy Sheriffs and Supervising Deputy Sheriffs perform many specific public safety and law enforcement functions. ‘They collect money from numerous locations in the city and transport it to banking facilities. They serve process in various high crimes areas; provide security for various agencies such as Parking Violations Bureau and the Office of Emergency Management; and enforce Court Orders and warrants under extremely dangerous circumstances. 16. There has been no explanation for the inexplicably large number of vital public servants that are about to be terminated or demoted in the Sheriffs’ Office. 17. The City is attempting to trade public safety for dollars, notwithstanding its obligation {o protect and act in the best interests of its citizens. 18. Respondents have stated that the method for determining layoffs is to first look at employee appointment date with the most recent being the first to go. If there is tie to then refer to the employees’ number on the eligible list. If the tie remains then refer to each employees’ social security number.19. A system that makes reference to a social security number for determining which employee is to be laid off, is not based on any reasonable or logical determination, but is simply arbitrary and capricious. WHEREFORE, Petitioners demand Judgment against Respondent and request an order: 1) Declaring that the actions of Respondents in terminating or demoting Petitioner's are arbitrary and capricious. 2) Preliminarily and permanently restraining and enjoining Respondents from terminating or demoting Petitioners. 3) Granting in its entirety the relief sought herein and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: New York, New York, January 19, 2011 ‘onald E. Kliegéfman, Esq. Kliegerman & Joseph, LLP Attorney for Petitioners Two Rector Street, 20" Floor ‘New York, New York 10006 (212) 964-2500