Source: https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2013_03_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2017-02-25 09:00:24
Document Index: 326462605

Matched Legal Cases: ['§22', '§97', '§22', '§44', '§20', '§80', '§80', '§7804', '§209', '§36', '§36', '§36', '§36', '§36', '§36', '§36', '§36', '§207', '§207', '§207', '§207']

Type in a key word or two concerning the subject or issue in which you are interested in the box at the upper left and tap enter to access any relevant material posted. Sunday, March 31, 2013
Issued during the week ending March 31, 2013 [Click on text highlighted in bold to access the
full report] DiNapoli: Best Buy and Bed Bath & Beyond
Agree to Promote Sustainable Business Practices With Suppliers
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Friday announced agreements with
Best Buy and Bed Bath & Beyond to encourage their suppliers to report on
workplace safety, human and worker rights and environmental compliance.
DiNapoli: Rensselaer County Employee Stole
Poor financial controls allowed a county employee to bilk Rensselaer County out
of $208,597 over a six–year period, according to an audit released Tuesday by State
Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The former employee was charged in July with
grand larceny, falsifying business records and defrauding the government. The
extent of her fraud, however, was not determined until county officials
contacted DiNapoli’s office requesting a full audit.
State Pension Fund Invests $3.4 Million in
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced Thursday that
DeltaPoint Capital Management has acquired a majority stake in Auburn Armature,
Inc., an electrical products distributor, manufacturer, and service company in
Cayuga County. The New York State Common Retirement Fund is an investor in
DeltaPoint through the In–State Private Equity Program.
DiNapoli: State Contractor Underpaid Workers
More Than $82,000; CUNY Failed to Monitor Vendor
A vendor with blanket approval to sell audio visual equipment to public
entities admitted underpaying its employees at least $82,000 by ignoring
prevailing wage laws, according to an audit released Monday by State
ORDA’s Ongoing Fiscal Challenges Prompt
State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli will launch a full financial audit of the
Olympic Regional Development Authority after a report by his office found that
financial issues persist at a time when its operations have been expanded to
include the Catskills–based Belleayre Mountain Ski Center.
completed audits of the East Moriches Union Free School District;
the Liberty Central School District; he Rotterdam–Mohonasen Central School District;
and, the Wayne Central School District.
The 2011-2013 class of the Empire State Fellows -- the
inaugural class of a program created by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo to prepare a new
generation of leaders for policy-making roles in New York State government --
has already made an impact on the administration. From promoting economic
development programs to devising strategies to assist needy New Yorkers, the
2011-2013 Empire State Fellows are working closely with officials in the
administration and participating in making key policy decisions.
Applications for the next class of Empire State Fellows
(2013-2015) are due by Friday, April 12, 2013 at 11:59 p.m. To apply, candidates must email a cover letter, resume,
personal statement, and two letters of recommendation to fellows@exec.ny.gov. Additional information about the 2013-2015 program and the
application process is available at http://www.dos.ny.gov/newnyleaders/fellows_app.html.
During the first six months of the program, the Empire State
Fellows met and worked with top-level administration officials and participated
in intensive government and policy courses at the Rockefeller Institute in
Albany. These Fellows are currently working on challenging and important issues facing
New York State and using their knowledge and background to make positive contributions.
Examples of the work the current Fellows have undertaken in
the last six months include:
of financing options for the New York State Environmental Facilities
and Women-Owned Business procurement * New
York Wine and Beer Summit to promote New York business
* Superstorm
Sandy recovery efforts and New York State Long-Term Disaster Preparedness
York State Homeownership Repair and Rebuilding Fund * Regional
Economic Development Councils Opportunity Agenda initiative
To learn more about the current Empire State Fellows
class, go to http://www.dos.ny.gov/newnyleaders/fellows.html
Governor Cuomo and Legislative Leaders outline agreement on 2013 -2014 Budget Governor Cuomo and Legislative Leaders outline agreement on 2013
-2014 Budget
March 27, 2013 Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, Senate Majority Coalition Co
Leaders Dean Skelos and Jeff Klein, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver outlined the agreement on the 2013
-14 Budget.
Establishment of positions in the Classified Service by a
In deciding this Article 78 action, the Appellate Division addressed a number of significant public personnel law issues including the establishment of positions
in the Classified Service by a political subdivision of the State,
jurisdictional classification of positions in the Classified Service and the impact of a Taylor Law agreement in the event there is layoff of employees in the Labor Class.
According to the decision, the Village
of Spring Valley appointed three individuals [petitioners] to classified service
positions of “Laborer” in the Labor Class in its Department of Public Works* and that these three individuals had “completed their probationary periods" prior to August 10, 2010. On August 10, 2010, however, the County of Rockland
Department of Personnel, the municipal civil service commission [Commission]
having jurisdiction over the Village, advised Spring Valley that it had
"no record of employment" for the three petitioners, citing Civil
Service Law §22 [Certification for positions] and §97 [Reports of appointing
officers; official rosters]. The Commission’s reference to Civil Service Law §22,
Certification for positions, suggests that these were new position or existing
positions in a jurisdictional class other than the Labor Class in that Section
22 provides that: “Before any new position in the service of a civil division
shall be created or any existing position in such service shall be
reclassified, the proposal therefor, including a statement of the duties of the
position, shall be referred to the municipal commission having jurisdiction and
such commission shall furnish a certificate stating the appropriate civil
service title for the proposed position or the position to be reclassified. Any
such new position shall be created or any such existing position reclassified
only with the title approved and certified by the commission.
Significantly, Civil Service Law §44 provides that all
positions in the Classified Service are in the competitive class unless placed
in a different jurisdictional classification. The Appellate Division's decision, however, makes no
reference to these three laborer positions having been placed in the Labor
Class by amendment of the Commission's Rules, which rules are subject to the
approval of the State Civil Service Commission in accordance with the
provisions of Civil Service Law §20.
Accordingly, appears that the three petitioners at the time
of their respective “appointment” were provisionally appointed to three “new positions in
the competitive class,” and that these appointments should have been so
reported to the Commission with Village’s request that the Commission amend its
rules to “jurisdictional classify the three positions in the Labor Class.”
The Commission’s August 10, 2010 notification also advised
the Village that the "[petitioners] without approval from this office to work
must be terminated immediately unless there is a resolution to the
That same day, the Village Board adopted Resolution No. 519
of 2010, unanimously resolving that the individual petitioners "shall be
immediately removed” from the Village payroll and informed that they are not
employees of the Village.The three individuals then filed a petition pursuant to CPLR
Article 78 seeking to annul the Village’s resolution removing them from the
Village payroll, to compel the Village to comply with its ministerial duty
under the Civil Service Law by submitting the required paperwork to the Commission, and
to reinstate them with back pay. The petitioners also submitted evidence that another
employee in the labor class with less seniority had been retained by the
Village after their removal from the payroll, an action they alleged violated
their “seniority rights under the governing collective bargaining agreement.”**
In response, the Village contended that in the months
preceding its adoption of the resolution terminating the three petitioners it
had conducted a comprehensive review of its operations and determined that the
Department of Public Works "would operate more economically and efficiently by
creating three new positions with the title of assistant maintenance mechanic
and eliminating all positions in the labor class by attrition and/or layoffs."
In rebuttal, the petitioners submitted evidence that the new
title “Assistant Maintenance Mechanic” was proposed on July 27, 2010 and
notice of three vacancies in the new class was posted on that date. Accordingly
the petitioners contended that the Village had not properly abolished the
individual petitioner's positions on August 10, 2010, but had terminated their
employment "in violation of the collective bargaining agreement and the Civil
Service Law." The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the
proceeding, holding that the Village had properly abolished the individual
petitioners' positions for the purpose of economy or efficiency and that the
petitioners had failed to allege or establish that the Village had acted in bad
faith in abolishing their positions. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s ruling,
explaining that the Doctrine of "Legislative equivalency requires that a
position created by a legislative act can only be abolished by a correlative
legislative act," citing Torre v County of Nassau, 86 NY2d 42.
Here, said the court, it is undisputed that each of the
individual petitioners' positions was created by resolution of the Village
Board, and thus, another resolution of the Village Board was required to
abolish each of those positions. Contrary to the Village's contention, the
Appellate Division ruled that three positions in question were not abolished by the Village's Resolution No. 519 of 2010.
The Appellate Division explained that “The misconception of
the Village Board that the positions did not exist was premised upon the
Village's own failure to comply with the filing requirements of the Civil
Service Law pursuant to the notification by the municipal civil service
commission." The Village Board had “unanimously resolved to ‘immediately remove[
]’ the individual petitioners from the Village payroll and to inform them that
they ‘are not employees of the Village,’ rather than to remedy their filing and
certification violations under the Civil Service Law.” Further, said the court, the plain language of the subject resolution “refutes the [Village's] contention that the Village Board
was abolishing positions then in existence.”
Moreover, said the Appellate Division, the record supports the
petitioners' contention that although the resolution “immediately removed the
individual petitioners from the payroll,” the Village continued to employ
another laborer with less seniority. The Appellate Division held that the
petitioners established that the positions of the individual petitioners were
not abolished and they were laid off in violation of the seniority provisions
of the collective bargaining agreement. The court explained that the Village's
action in removing the individual petitioners from the payroll was not
justified by its proper creation of a new class of employees, with the
intention of eliminating the labor class by attrition or layoff. Clearly "A public employer may abolish civil service
positions for the purpose of economy or efficiency, as long as the position is
not abolished as a subterfuge to avoid statutory protection afforded civil
servants before they are discharged."
Here, however, the Appellate Division ruled that “although the evidence
supported the Village’s contention that it intended to
abolish the laborer positions after it had created the new class of assistant
maintenance mechanic,” the evidence does not support its contention that the
Village actually abolished the individual petitioners' positions in the
resolution dated August 10, 2010 [emphasis in the decision]. In any event, said the court, even if the August 10
resolution could be construed to abolish the individual petitioners' positions
effective August 10, 2010, the immediate termination of their employment
pursuant to that resolution violated a provision in the collective bargaining
agreement requiring two weeks notice prior to terminating an employee whose
position has been abolished, and thus constituted improper abolishment of a
civil service position "to avoid the statutory [in this instance better
read “a contractual”] protection afforded civil servants before they are
discharged." The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, annulled the Village’s August 10 resolution and remitted the case to the
Supreme Court, Rockland County for further proceedings “including a
calculation of the individual petitioners' pay retroactive to August 10, 2010.”
* The Classified Service
consists of four jurisdictional classes: the Competitive Class, the
Non-competitive Class; the Exempt Class and the Labor Class. ** N.B. Employees in
the Labor Class are not within the ambit of either §80 or §80-a of the Civil
Service Law [which sections of law provide certain rights to employees in the
competitive and non-competitive classes in the event of a layoff] but employees
in the Labor Class may be accorded layoff rights based on “seniority” pursuant
to a Taylor Law agreement provided that any such contract right does not adversely affect the statutory layoff rights of other employees [see City of Plattsburgh v Local 788, 108 AD2d 1045]. The decision is posted on the Internet at:
Employee terminated for having submitted a false application
The Appellate Division affirmed the termination of a New
York City police officer by the Police Commissioner after the officer was found
to have submitted a false mortgage application.
Finding that there was substantial evidence showing that the
officer had “falsely listed a company that [the officer] did not work for as
his sole source of income, and falsely listed a New Jersey address as his
primary residence,” the court said there was no basis to disturb the
credibility determinations of the Hearing Officer.
As to the penalty imposed, dismissal from his position, the
court, citing Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d, 32, said that termination did not shock its
sense of fairness as the Commissioner "is accountable to the public for
the integrity of the Department." The decision is posted on the Internet at:
Issued during the week of March
18-24, 2013 [Click on the caption to access the full report]
DiNapoli: PepsiCo to Disclose Lobbying and
Trade Association Ties
PepsiCo, a global food and beverage company with annual revenues of $60
billion, has agreed to fully disclose all of its direct lobbying and
contributions made to trade associations as well as funds paid to grassroots
lobbying and tax-exempt organizations that write and endorse model legislation,
according to New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. In response to the
agreement, DiNapoli withdrew a shareholder resolution calling for disclosure of
shareholder money spent on lobbying and other political spending.
SEC Action Puts Caterpillar Resolution on
Sudan up for Shareholder Vote
The New York State Common Retirement Fund’s shareholder
resolution calling upon Caterpillar Inc. to take steps to ensure that the
company’s foreign subsidiaries are not doing business with the government of
Sudan will go before shareholders on June 12, New York State Comptroller Thomas
P. DiNapoli announced Thursday. Caterpillar had attempted to block the
resolution from appearing on its shareholder proxy statement to be voted upon
at its annual meeting by petitioning
the Securities and Exchange Commission to allow its exclusion from the meeting
DiNapoli: Tax Collections Declined in
February; Budget Must Reflect Realistic Revenue Expectations
Total tax collections trailed the latest projections in the amended Executive
Budget Financial Plan released last month, according to the February cash report
released Wednesday by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. Tax collections
through February totaled $59.9 billion, 2.6 percent higher than the same period
a year ago although collections in the month of February were 5.6 percent lower
than collections for the same period last year.
of Deerfield; the Town
of Newstead; and, the Town
A party is permitted to introduce updated records as evidence upon the resumption of an administrative hearing if an opportunity to respond to such records is provided
A party is permitted to introduce updated records as
evidence upon the resumption of an administrative hearing if an opportunity to
respond to such records is provided
Coleman v Rhea, 2013 NY Slip Op 01783, Appellate Division,
In resolving this Article 78 petition one of the issues
considered by the Appellate Division was whether there was “substantial
evidence” to support an administrative determination made after a hearing.
The petitioner, Wanda Coleman, claimed that her right to due
process was violated when the hearing officer permitted the New York City
Housing Authority [NYCHA] to submit an updated ledger into evidence when an
administrative hearing was resumed.
The Appellate Division disagreed, explaining that Coleman
was free to testify regarding the updated ledger and the hearing officer kept
the hearing record open post-hearing to give Coleman a full opportunity to
respond to the updated information. Indeed, said the court, Coleman had availed herself of this
opportunity by submitting documentary evidence. Further, the court ruled that the hearing officer
had not violated NYCHA's relevant internal administrative procedures in so doing.
A second issue concerned a procedural matter.
The Appellate Division noted
that Supreme Court had denied Coleman’s Article 78 petition seeking to annul NYCHA’s
administrative determination. The Appellate Division, however, “unanimously
reversed” Supreme Court’s ruling on the law and treated the petition as one
transferred to it for a de novo review. Coleman’s petition, said the court, raised an issue of
substantial evidence, and thus, the proceeding should have been transferred to
this Court pursuant to CPLR §7804(g). Accordingly, the Appellate Division
considered the substantial evidence issue de novo and decided all issues
presented as if the proceeding had been properly transferred to it by Supreme
Court in the first instance.
The Appellate Division then confirmed NYCHA’s administrative
determination as supported by substantial evidence and denied Coleman’s petition,
dismissing the proceeding. The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_01783.htm
If a past practice involving a mandatory subject of negotiation is established the Taylor Law bars the employer from unilaterally discontinuing that practice If a past practice involving a mandatory subject of
negotiation is established the Taylor Law bars the employer from unilaterally
discontinuing that practice Town of Islip v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd.,
2013 NY Slip Op 01562, Appellate Division, Second Department
The Public Employment Relations Board [PERB] affirmed a
decision of its administrative law judge that found, after a hearing, that an
improper practice charge filed by Local 237, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters and United Public Service Employees Union, violated Civil Service Law
§209-a(1)(d).
The genesis of Local 237 filing an improper practice charge
with PERB was the Town’s unilaterally discontinued an alleged past practice
involving the use of Town vehicles by certain unit members to commute. PERB directed the Town to reinstate the practice and to
"make whole unit employees for the extra expenses incurred as a result of
the unilateral withdrawal of the vehicle assignments, if any, together with
interest at the maximum legal rate." The Town had contended that the practice violated its Code
of Ethics and Financial Disclosure Law which, in pertinent part, provided that
"[n]o officer or employee shall request or permit the use of Town-owned
vehicles, equipment, material or property for personal convenience or profit,
except when such services are available to the public generally or are provided
as municipal policy for the use of such officer or employee in the conduct of
official business. In addition, the Town had a written policy concerning the
use of Town vehicles. According to the decision “For at least 15 years prior to
2007, the policy was frequently ignored with respect to assignments of Town
vehicles for permanent use. In late 2007, the Town and a union representing
certain Town employees were negotiating two new collective bargaining
agreements. In the course of negotiations the Town proposed a provision
concerning employee use of Town vehicles, but then withdrew its proposal, contending that the permanent use of Town-owned vehicles was not a mandatory
subject of collective bargaining. When negotiations were at an impasse in early 2008 on
various issues, the Town Board passed a resolution limiting the assignment of
"take-home" vehicles. As a result of this action approximately 45
unit members lost their assignments of Town vehicles for their permanent use. The two unions then representing the affected employees
filed an improper practice charge with the PERB contending that the long-extant
practice of assigning Town vehicles for permanent use to persons who did not
qualify for them under the Town's written policy had given rise to a "past
practice" as an economic benefit. Thus, argued the unions, “Any change
in that practice … was a 'mandatory' subject of collective
bargaining, and the Town's change in policy constituted an improper employment
practice." A PERB administrative law judge determined that the
longstanding practice of assigning Town vehicles to employees for permanent use
constituted a past practice regarding the terms and conditions of employment,
notwithstanding that those permanent assignments were in conflict with the Town's
written policy. The Town was directed to restore the
vehicles to the employees and compensate the employees for the period during
which they were without the vehicles. PERB, in its final determination,
affirmed the administrative law judge's decision. The Appellate Division sustained PERB’s decision, explaining
that under the Taylor Law a public employer is obligated to negotiate in good
faith with the bargaining representative of its current employees regarding the
"terms and conditions of employment" and the failure to do so
constitutes an improper employment practice. Further, said the court, pursuant to this duty to
negotiate, where a past practice between a public employer and its current
employees is established involving a mandatory subject of negotiation, the
Taylor Law bars the employer from discontinuing that practice without
prior negotiation, citing Aeneas McDonald Police Benevolent Assn. v City
of Geneva, 92 NY2d 326.
As PERB's determination was "made as a result of a
hearing held, and at which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction by
law," the Appellate Division said that it must determine whether PERB's decision was
supported by "substantial evidence." In addition, in light of certain of
the Town's contentions,* the Court said that it
must also inquire whether the determination "was affected by an error of
law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion." The Appellate Division’s conclusions:
1. The PERB's determination was not affected by an error of
law, as the Town could be required to collectively bargain over the
issue. The court explained that the Town government was responsible for
administering the Ethics Code and for managing its vehicle fleet. Yet, as
substantial evidence in the record established, the Town frequently and openly
ignored that Code and its policy for managing its vehicle fleet, only to
contend later that the Code allowed it to act unilaterally in taking the
vehicles away from the employees who had been permanently provided with them.
PERB, said the court, was not required to give more effect to the Town Ethics Code than the
Town itself gave to it. 2. For similar reasons, the Appellate Division ruled that it cannot be said as a matter of law
that it is unreasonable for employees to rely on the administering authority's
interpretation and implementation of its policy and Ethics Code. Consequently,
the PERB's determination was not affected by an error of law, was not arbitrary and
capricious, did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
In the words of the court, “The evidence in the record
supported the PERB's determination that the assignment of Town vehicles to the
affected employees for permanent use was unequivocal and continued
uninterrupted for a period of time which, under the circumstances, created a
reasonable expectation among the affected unit employees that the practice
would continue. “The assignment of Town vehicles by Town officials to nonqualifying
employees was done openly and without any indication to the employees that it
was other than legitimate. The payroll office was notified to deduct a certain
amount from the employees' paychecks to account for the value of the benefit.
Moreover, the practice continued unabated for many years. “Consequently, the Appellate Division ruled that PERB
properly determined that the assignment of vehicles to the affected employees
for permanent use constituted a past practice as to a term or condition of employment,
and that the Town engaged in an improper practice by refusing to engage in
collective bargaining as to a change to that term or condition.”
* The Town claimed that as
its Ethics Code forbids the use of Town vehicles in violation of Town policy,
the Town could not be forced to engage in collective bargaining over the issue.
In addition, the Town argued that, as a matter of law, the employees could not
have a reasonable expectation that the assignment of Town vehicles for
permanent use would continue, because such an assignment of vehicles violated
the Town Ethics Code. The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_01562.htm
Petition seeking to remove a public office from his or her
position pursuant to Public Officers Law §36 must be served in accordance with
the rules of the Appellate Division having jurisdiction
Nielsen v Hafner, 2013 NY Slip Op 01555, Appellate Division, Second
§36 of the Public Officers Law provides for the removal of a
town, village, improvement district or fire district officer, other than a
justice of the peace, for misconduct, maladministration, malfeasance or
malversation in office. Any citizen resident in the jurisdiction, or the appropriate
district attorney, may file a §36 application
seeking the removal of such an officer with the Appellate Division in the
appropriate judicial department. §36 provides that a copy of the application
and the charges upon which the application will be made must be served on the
officer at least 8 days prior to such filing.
Karen Nielsen initiated an action seeking a court order to
remove Bruce Hafner from public office in Cold Spring Harbor, Town of
Huntington, Suffolk County, pursuant to Public Officers Law §36 with the Appellate
Nielsen also filed a petition pursuant to Article 78 of the
Civil Practice Law and Rules with the Appellate Division seeking an order to
compel Hafner to resign as Fire Commissioner of the Cold Spring Harbor Fire
District. Hafner asked the Appellate Division to dismiss Nielsen’s
petition filed pursuant to Public Officers Law §36 on the ground that it was
not properly served upon him. The court agreed and granted Hafner’s motion to
the extent that it sought relief pursuant to Public Officers Law §36,
indicating that the petition was not properly served in accordance with the
Court’s rules as set out in 22 NYCRR 670.18.*
Turning to Nielsen’s Article 78 petition seeking a court
order compelling Hafner to resign from his office of Fire Commissioner, the
Appellate Division dismissed this branch of the action as well, explaining it
did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider the Article 78 petition
filed by Nielsen.
* The rules of the Appellate
Division, Second Department provide that a special proceeding pursuant to
Public Officers Law §36 “shall be commenced by the filing of a petition in the
office of the clerk … pursuant to CPLR 304. Service of the petition with a
notice of petition or order to show cause shall be made in accordance with CPLR
306-b on at least 20 days' notice to the respondent.”
Employer’s rejection of an individual’s claim for GML §207-c
disability benefits does not necessarily bar his or her becoming eligible for
such benefits at a later date
Zembiec v County of Monroe, 2013 NY Slip Op 01736, Appellate
A Monroe County Sheriff's Department (MCSD) employee
challenged the Department’s decision that he was not entitled to General
Municipal Law §207-c benefits available to law enforcement personnel injured in
Supreme Court concluded that the MCSD’s determination was
arbitrary and capricious and granted awarding the individual disability
benefits retroactive to December 4, 2009, the date of the employee's request
for those benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The court took note of an earlier action involving the same
parties [see Zembiec v County of Monroe [Appeal No. 2], 87 AD3d 1358] in
which the employee sought disability benefits for the period August 12, 2008
through June 15, 2009 as well as his regular pay from June 15, 2009 through
March 25, 2010. The Appellate Division denied that part of the employee’s
petition seeking an award of regular pay from June 15, 2009 through March 25,
2010, explaining that the employee was required to report to a modified duty
assignment on June 15, 2009, but did not do so
Among the arguments advanced by MCSD was that the employee’s
claim in this proceeding was precluded by the doctrine of res judicata.* The Appellate Division rejected this claim, stating
that the employees current claim for benefits was based on a December 2, 2009
status report prepared by an MCSD physician, in which the physician determined
that he was not fit to return to work. The court explained that the employee’s
introduction of this status report in the prior proceeding did not establish
the claims being asserted in this proceeding and in the prior proceeding arose
out of the same transaction or series of transactions. Although the proceedings both involve claims concerning the
employee's entitlement to disability benefits and are arguably related in time
inasmuch as certain events relevant to this appeal, i.e., the issuance of the
status report and petitioner's second request for disability benefits, occurred
while the prior proceeding was pending, the proceedings are based upon two
different transactions — MCSD’s June 15, 2009 decision denying the §207-c
benefits and its July 19, 2010 decision denying the §207-c benefits being
sought by the employee.
In the prior proceeding the court was concerned only with
the issue whether MCSD’s June 15, 2009 determination was "arbitrary and
capricious" and the court's "review of [the] administrative
determination [in the prior proceeding was] limited to the facts and record
adduced before the agency.'" Thus the court could not rely on
post-determination submissions, such as the December 2, 2009 status report, in
evaluating MCSD’s determination. The Appellate also rejected MCSD’s alternative argument that
the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel** bared the
employee’s instant claim, concluding that the issues concerning employee's
ability to return to work and his eligibility for disability benefits in
December 2009 had not been decided in the prior proceeding. The court explained
that although it determined that Supreme Court erred in awarding the employee
regular pay from June 15, 2009 through March 25, 2010, in the earlier
proceeding, that determination had not foreclosed the possibility that employee
might, at some point after June 15, 2009, again become eligible for disability
Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel bars issues that
have been litigated from being litigated again by the same parties.
The instant decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_01736.htm
Reform Webinar for Public Employers Now Available Online The NYMUNIBLOG Editorial Team has posted the Harris Beach webinar, “Health Care Reform’s Impact on Public Entities: Don’t Get Caught Waiting for 2014 – What You Need to be Doing Now,” on the Internet. It is is now available for downloading and streaming for those unable to attend on March 14, 2013 presentation at http://nymuniblog.com/?p=3120
week ending March 17, 2013 [Click on the caption to access the full report]
DiNapoli: General Electric Agrees to Examine
Risks from New PCB Hotspots in Hudson
General Electric Corp. has agreed to prepare an analysis of
the actions required to remove recently discovered polychlorinated biphenyl
contamination contaminated sediments from the Hudson River and report its
findings to shareholders, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli
announced Monday. The analysis will be completed by the end of 2013. In
response to the agreement, DiNapoli withdrew a shareholder resolution calling
on the company to do such an evaluation.
DiNapoli and Saratoga DA Murphy: Former Fire
District Treasurer Pleads Guilty to Stealing Taxpayer Funds
The former treasurer of the Charlton Fire District has admitted to embezzling
$500,000 in public funds as the result of an audit and investigation by State
Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and further investigation by Saratoga County
District Attorney James A. Murphy, III and the New York State Police.
DiNapoli: Challenges Remain For New York City
New York City’s budget is balanced in the current fiscal year and Mayor
Bloomberg has presented a balanced preliminary budget for fiscal year 2014, but
a number of issues pose significant budget risks in the years ahead, according
to a report released Tuesday by New
DiNapoli: Nassau County Needs to Improve
While Nassau County is following established guidelines for approving
contracts, the authorization process often misses approval deadlines, according
to an audit issued Thursday by State
Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. Auditors found that because of the lengthy
review process vendors began working on half the contracts an average of seven
weeks prior to the contract being signed by the county.
completed audits of the Town of Columbus; the Town of Hamlin; the Village of Lyndonville; the Town of Mansfield; the Town of Otselic; and, the Town of Pittstown.
completed audits of: the Niskayuna Central School District;
the Pine Bush Central School District;
and, the South Glens Falls Central School District.
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli’s audit of Mill Neck Manor reports the facility overcharged the State more than $280,000 New York State
Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli’s audit of Mill Neck Manor reports the
facility overcharged the State more than $280,000 An audit report released by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli on March 14,
2013 reports that the Mill
Neck Manor School for the Deaf, a
Nassau County provider of special education services for children with hearing
disabilities, overcharged the State Department of Education* [SDE] more than $280,000, including charges for extra salary and benefits for the school’s Executive
Mill Neck, part of the
larger Mill Neck Family of Organizations, claimed $64,817 from the State for
salary paid to its Executive Director, Mark Prowatzke, that should have come from elsewhere in the
organization. Auditors also identified $7,688
in vacation costs that were claimed for reimbursement, but were not paid by the
school to its employees. DiNapoli recommendations included that:
1. SDE review the inappropriate and unsupported expenses and take action to
recover such reimbursed expenses; and
Neck School should not charge costs to the program that are not in compliance
with the State Education Department’s Reimbursable Cost Manual (Manual). 3. Explain
Manual requirements to staff involved in preparing the Consolidated Fiscal
Reports and the cost reimbursement processes. A copy of the audit report is posted on
the Internet at: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093013/11s40.pdf DiNapoli has identified
other fraud and improper use of funds in a recent series of audits of special
education providers. There have
been several criminal referrals, felony arrests, criminal convictions and
hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution made as a result of the audits. In total, 30 special education contractors have been or
are being audited. The Comptroller's recent audit of SED’s
fiscal and program oversight of special education providers found that the
agency has not conducted any on-site provider audits since 2007. A summary of key findings in this audit
report, which was issued on December 18, 2012, is posted on the Internet at:
. The link to the full text of the December 2012 audit report, which is posted
on the Internet, is: Link to full audit report (2012-S-103)
* SDE oversees special education programs for
students with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21. In addition to
services provided by local school districts, these programs include services
delivered to about 75,000 students by more than 300 for-profit and
not-for-profit entities at an annual state cost of $1.3 billion.
Additional duties to incumbents of certain positions may
serve as a rational basis for their allocation to different salary grades
despite some overlap of duties
Cribbin v New York State Unified Ct. Sys., 2013 NY Slip Op
01548, Appellate Division, Second Department
Patrick Cribbin file an Article 78 petition seeking an order
compelling the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of the State of New
York to reclassify an certain New York State Court Officer-Major I (Judicial
Grade-26) employees to the title of New York State Court Officer-Major II
(Judicial Grade-28).
The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court ruling that
granted the petition [as amended] and remitted the matter to the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Courts of the State of New York for further
proceedings. The court said that when a position classification decision
is made "[t]he courts have the power to reverse or modify a particular
classification . . . [only] if it is wholly arbitrary or without any rational
basis," citing Association of Secretaries to Justices of Supreme and
Surrogate's Courts in the City of New York. v Office of Court Administration of
the State of New York., 75 NY2d 460 and other decisions.
The Appellate Division explained that “So long as the
classification determination has a rational basis, a court may not disturb it
even if there are legitimate grounds for a difference of opinion.” As the record established a rational basis for the
distinction between the positions of Major
I and Major II, even though there was some overlap in duties, the court
concluded that the additional
managerial duties assigned incumbents of Major II positions provided a rational
basis for distinguishing between the two positions. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_01548.htm
The failure of a witness to respond to a subpoena issued by
the hearing officer not necessarily fatal to the administrative decision if good cause for
such failure is shown
The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court’s denial of
an Article 78 petition seeking to annul the determination of Waterfront
Commission of New York.
Among the addressed by the Appellate Division concerning the
admission of hearsay statements in the course of the proceeding and
petitioner’s inability to cross-examine a witness alleged to have made
statements to the detriment of the petitioner.
As to the issue concerning hearsay evidence, the Appellate
Division ruled that “The admission of hearsay statements at the administrative
hearing did not violate petitioner's due process rights to a fair hearing or
cross-examination.” The court explained that “It is well established that
‘[h]earsay evidence can be the basis of an administrative determination,’"
citing Gray v Adduci, 73 NY2d 741.
The court also noted that in addition to the
challenged hearsay testimony, the Commission presented testimony that
corroborated the hearsay testimony.
With respect to the issue concerning the petitioner’s inability
to cross-examine an individual who made statements implicating him because the
individual ignored a subpoena issued by the Administrative Law Judge, the
Appellate Division said that this did not require a different result. In the
words of the court: “The fact that the subpoena may have been ignored was not
the fault of [Commission] or the [Administrative Law Judge…” as the target of
the subpoena was incarcerated at the time.
The court noted that the petitioner was able to
cross-examine the live witnesses, and good cause was established for the
failure to produce the subpoenaed witness at the hearing. The decision is posted on the Internet at:
A town council member may not simultaneously serve as the town's financial
Informal Opinions of the Attorney General 2013-01 A town asked for the Attorney General’s opinion as to
whether the positions of town council member and town financial operations manager or,
alternatively, director of finance, can be held by the same person. The Attorney General concluded that such positions may not
be held by the same individual, explaining that because of the town board's responsibility to
oversee the Town's fiscal operations, a council member should not
simultaneously hold the position of financial operations manager or director of finance. The opinion
notes that the Attorney General has repeatedly expressed the view that one
person cannot serve as both a member of a local government's governing body and
in a subordinate second position for the same local government. The fundamental concept regarding such incompatibility: one person cannot
be both the supervisor and the supervised [see People ex rel. Ryan v. Green, 58
N.Y. 295, 304 (1874)]
Former town clerk alleged to have used town’s credit card to
State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reported that a former clerk of the Town of Argyle,
Washington County, used a town credit card to pay for more than $8,000 of
DiNapoli’s auditors
found that from January 2009 through December 2012, the former clerk made four
separate purchases totaling $8,347 that were not for town business. In addition,
late fees and finance charges totaling $2,013 were accumulated. The town
supervisor alerted auditors to the misuse.
The former clerk paid off the debt and
admitted to improperly using the town’s credit card. The town did not pay for
any of the unauthorized purchases, late fees or finance charges incurred.
Charges were not filed because the clerk repaid the town. DiNapoli’s recommendations for the town
to avoid such situations in the future included:
1. The board should ensure that all
town-issued credit cards are used for business purposes only and the monthly
credit card statements are included with the monthly claims to be audited prior
to payment; 2. The board and town
clerk should assess the credit limit on the Clerk’s credit card account and
reduce it to an appropriate level for the needs of the office; 3. The clerk should
deposit all moneys intact and in a timely manner; and 4. The clerk should remit moneys collected to the
town supervisor and other agencies in a timely manner. Town officials agreed
with several findings in the audit. Their comments are included in the audit
report. For a copy of the
report, it is available on the Internet at: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/towns/2013/argyle.pdf
Disqualification of applicant unable to meet Civil Service
Commission’s hearing requirements not unlawful discrimination under the State’s
A candidate for the position of a Nassau County police
officer filed an Article 78 petition challenging the Nassau County Civil
Service Commission’s decision disqualifying him for the position.
Although Supreme Court granted the candidates petition and
annulled the Commission’s determination, the Appellate Division reversed the
lower court’s ruling and dismissed the candidate’s petition “on the merits.”
The first was procedural: was the candidates Article 78
petition timely. The Commission contended that it was untimely, arguing that
the Article 78 action was commenced more that four months after its
determination disqualifying the candidate. The Appellate Division disagreed with the Commission,
holding that the candidate’s petition was timely. Noting that CPLR 217(1)
specifies that the limitations period begins to run when "the
determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the
petitioner," the court explained that "An administrative
determination becomes final and binding when the petitioner seeking review has
been aggrieved by it."
Here, said the Appellate Division, the candidate “was not
aggrieved until he was notified that he was disqualified from further
consideration” for failing to meet its hearing requirements.
The second issue concerned the Commission’s exercise of its
discretion when it adopted a more stringent audio logy standard than that
established by the State’s Municipal Police Training Commission.
The Appellate Division ruled that the Commission had acted
within the scope of its discretionary power when it adopted a resolution which
modified the Municipal Police Training Commission standards and did not
contravene the procedure for the adoption of "rules" in doing so.
As the appointing authority has wide discretion in
determining the fitness of candidates, the disqualification of the petitioner
for failing to meet those modified audiological, the court concluded that the
modified standard was not arbitrary and capricious.
In addition court noted that the Commission’s determination
that the candidate failed to meet the modified Municipal Police Training
Commission hearing standards constituted an individualized finding that his
disability prevents him from performing the functions of a police officer in a
reasonable manner “such that his disqualification did not constitute unlawful
discrimination under the State’s Human Rights Law.
March 10, 2013 [Click on text highlighted in bold to access the full report] DiNapoli: Dunkin’ Donuts Agrees to Run on
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced Thursday that Dunkin’
Brands Group, owner of Dunkin’ Donuts, has agreed to set a date for sourcing
100 percent of the palm oil used to make its products from sustainable sources.
DiNapoli: State and Local Public Authority
Debt Nears $250 Billion
Public authority debt increased to nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars in
the latest reported fiscal year, according to a report
released Tuesday by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. New York relies on
authorities to undertake most borrowing on its behalf, and routinely uses
authority resources to plug state budget gaps.
MTA’s East Side Access Project 10 Years Late
and $4.4 Billion Over Budget
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA’s) East Side Access project,
which will bring Long Island Rail Road service to Grand Central Terminal for
the first time, is expected to cost nearly $9 billion when finished in 2019,
more than twice the MTA’s initial cost estimate and a decade later than
expected, according to a report
DiNapoli Announces Results of General
Obligation Bond Sale: $566,560,000 Awarded
State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Thursday awarded three series of New York
State General Obligation Bonds, totaling $566,560,000, through a competitive
sale. Specifically, the sales were $348,065,000 of Series 2013A Tax–Exempt
Bonds, $47,810,000 of Series 2013B Taxable Bonds and $170,685,000 of Series
2013C Tax–Exempt Refunding Bonds. The bonds are scheduled to be delivered on
The amendments to the Executive Budget for state fiscal year 2013–14 curtailed
some risks contained in the originally proposed budget, but the impact from
federal sequester cuts represent a risk to the Financial Plan according to a report
released by Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.
The city of Rochester, hampered by increasing budget gaps and the highest
percentage of families living in poverty of any city in New York, is expected
to face heightened fiscal stress in coming years, according to a report
released Monday by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The city’s revenues
have grown at a higher rate than other cities, giving it some flexibility that
other cities do not have. The report is the latest in a series of fiscal
of Prattsville; the Town
of Riverhead; and, the City