Probation-by-Negotiated Plea Agreement: Bare Forgery Claims and “I Didn’t Read It” Do Not Defeat Consecutive Probation Extending a DOC Officer’s At‑Will Status

Introduction

Matter of Ford v New York City Dept. of Corr. (Appellate Division, Second Department, Mar. 18, 2026) addresses whether Jonathan Ford, a New York City Department of Corrections (“DOC”) correction officer, was a probationary employee when the DOC terminated him on January 29, 2016—an issue that controlled whether he was entitled to due process protections (notice and an opportunity to be heard) before discharge.

The dispute turned on two negotiated plea agreements (“NPAs”) resolving DOC disciplinary charges. Ford admittedly signed a 2013 NPA that returned him to probationary status for two years. The DOC contended Ford later signed a 2014 NPA (relating to new charges) that imposed an additional two-year probationary period consecutive to the first, keeping him probationary at the time of termination. Ford claimed the 2014 NPA was forged, or alternatively that he signed it believing it was merely another copy of the 2013 NPA.

After a hearing, Supreme Court credited Ford, annulled the termination, and ordered reinstatement with back pay and benefits. The Second Department reversed, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Summary of the Opinion

  • The Appellate Division held that the hearing evidence did not support Ford’s claim that he failed to execute the 2014 NPA or that his signatures were forgeries.
  • The court further held Ford could not avoid the 2014 NPA by asserting he did not understand its contents or did not read it before signing.
  • Because Ford remained a probationary employee at the time of termination, the DOC could terminate him without a hearing absent proof of bad faith or illegal/impermissible purpose—proof Ford did not supply.
  • The DOC’s determination was not shown to be arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, unlawful, or affected by an error of law under CPLR 7803(3).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

  • Matter of Still v City of Middletown, 133 AD3d 864, 865:
    Provided the governing CPLR article 78 standard—whether agency action was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, unlawful, or affected by an error of law. The court framed its review through this lens rather than re-trying the merits of the termination.
  • Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758, 762-763:
    Supplied the core rule that probationary employees may be dismissed for almost any reason or no reason and have no right to a hearing. This was central: once Ford was deemed probationary, the case largely reduced to whether an exception (bad faith/illegal purpose) was shown.
  • Matter of Young v City of New York, 221 AD3d 721, 722; Matter of Trager v Suffolk County, 185 AD3d 697, 698; Matter of Gagedeen v Ponte, 170 AD3d 1013, 1014:
    Reinforced the Swinton probationary-employee doctrine and the narrowness of judicial review in probationary discharge cases.
  • Matter of City of Long Beach v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 39 NY3d 17, 24:
    Clarified the contrasting rule: when an employee is not probationary, due process requires notice and a minimal opportunity to be heard. Ford relied on this principle, but it only mattered if he could establish non-probationary status.
  • Matter of Johnson v County of Orange, 138 AD3d 850, 851:
    Set out the exceptions to at-will probationary termination (bad faith, constitutionally impermissible, illegal purpose, or violation of statutory/decisional law) and limited the scope of judicial review to those issues. The court applied this limitation after concluding Ford was probationary.
  • Matter of Bourne v New York City Tr. Auth., 274 AD2d 581, 581:
    Placed the burden on Ford to prove bad faith or illegality. The decision emphasizes that a petitioner must produce “competent evidence,” not speculation or conclusory assertions.
  • Banco Popular N. Am. v Victory Taxi Mgt., 1 NY3d 381, 384:
    Provided the key evidentiary principle used to reject Ford’s forgery theory: “something more than a bald assertion of forgery” is required. The presence of multiple signatures and corroborating circumstances (notice of charges; counsel’s letter requesting signature) made Ford’s mere denial insufficient.
  • Matter of Augustine v BankUnited FSB, 75 AD3d 596, 597:
    Supplied the rule that a signatory is generally bound by a document’s contents and cannot avoid its effect by claiming they did not read or understand it. The court used this to defeat Ford’s alternative “I thought it was the 2013 NPA” argument, noting the 2014 NPA clearly referenced DR No. 496/13 and consecutive probation.
  • Matter of Terelle v New York City Dept. of Educ., 218 AD3d 777, 778:
    Supported the conclusion that, absent evidence of bad faith/illegality, the termination of a probationary employee should be upheld under CPLR 7803(3)’s deferential standard.

Legal Reasoning

  1. Status question controlled the case.
    The court treated the proceeding as turning first on whether Ford was probationary on January 29, 2016. If he was probationary, no pre-termination hearing was required absent the recognized exceptions; if he was not, minimal due process would attach.
  2. Ford did not prove the 2014 NPA was forged or unexecuted.
    The record included (i) evidence of separate, later disciplinary charges (DR No. 496/13), (ii) counsel’s February 13, 2014 letter asking him to sign an NPA, and (iii) a copy of the 2014 NPA containing his signature “in numerous places.” Ford conceded the signatures looked like his. Applying Banco Popular N. Am. v Victory Taxi Mgt., the court held his denial was too conclusory to establish forgery.
  3. “I thought it was something else” did not excuse assent.
    Even if Ford claimed confusion, Matter of Augustine v BankUnited FSB barred avoidance where the document’s content is clear and the party signed it. The 2014 NPA expressly acknowledged DR No. 496/13 and stated the two-year probation would run consecutively to the existing probation imposed by the 2013 NPA.
  4. With probation established, review narrowed to bad faith/illegality—and Ford offered none.
    Under Matter of Johnson v County of Orange and Matter of Bourne v New York City Tr. Auth., Ford had to produce competent evidence that the termination was in bad faith, unconstitutional, illegal, or contrary to statutory/decisional law. The court found the record “devoid” of such proof and therefore upheld the DOC’s action under CPLR 7803(3).

Impact

  • Strengthens enforceability of disciplinary settlement paperwork extending probation.
    Agencies can rely on clearly drafted NPAs that impose consecutive probationary terms, especially when supported by routine documentary corroboration (charge notices, counsel correspondence, multiple signature placements).
  • Raises the practical evidentiary bar for “forgery” defenses in Article 78 employment-status disputes.
    Petitioners challenging probationary status based on alleged forged settlement documents should expect courts to require objective proof (e.g., handwriting expert evidence, authentication challenges, inconsistencies in document chain-of-custody), not mere denial.
  • Confirms narrow judicial review once probationary status is found.
    After probation is established, litigation typically turns to whether the petitioner can prove bad faith or illegality—often difficult without specific facts. This decision underscores that courts will not expand Article 78 review into a de facto merits hearing on termination.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • CPLR article 78 proceeding: A special court procedure to challenge actions of government agencies or officers. Courts do not substitute their judgment for the agency’s; they ask whether the agency acted unlawfully or irrationally.
  • Arbitrary and capricious (CPLR 7803[3]): A decision made without a rational basis or without regard to the facts.
  • Probationary employee: An employee still in a trial period (or placed back into one). In New York public employment, probationary employees may generally be terminated without a hearing unless the termination is in bad faith or illegal.
  • Negotiated Plea Agreement (NPA): A settlement of disciplinary charges in which the employee agrees to specified penalties or conditions (here, reversion to/extension of probation) in exchange for resolving pending allegations.
  • “Bald assertion of forgery”: A bare claim that “it’s not my signature,” unsupported by objective evidence. Courts require more than a conclusory denial when the document and surrounding proof suggest authenticity.
  • Duty to read: A general contract principle: a person who signs a document is usually bound by its clear terms even if they claim they did not read or understand it.

Conclusion

Matter of Ford v New York City Dept. of Corr. reinforces a practical rule in public-employment Article 78 litigation: where an agency produces a facially valid disciplinary settlement that clearly extends probation—particularly with multiple signatures and corroborating documentation—the employee must do more than deny signing or claim misunderstanding to escape probationary status. Once probation is shown, the termination stands unless the petitioner proves bad faith or illegality, and the court’s review remains tightly constrained under CPLR 7803(3).