Source: https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2014_01_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2017-02-25 09:04:42
Document Index: 463800707

Matched Legal Cases: ['§3028', '§3811', '§3811', '§3811', '§ 3811', '§6509', '§305', '§114', '§114', '§114', '§114', '§23', '§3', '§3', '§72', '§72', '§72', '§72', '§207', '§44', '§44', '§207', '§7511', '§207', '§7511', '§207', '§ 207']

New York Public Personnel Law: January 2014
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. Friday, January 31, 2014
School’s Government Law Center will present the 2014 Annual Warren M. Anderson
Breakfast Seminar Series, a nonpartisan hour-long breakfast program held at the
Capitol during the Legislative Session. The program features
informative speakers to address legal aspects of current public policy issues
facing the State of New York. Since it was established 22 years ago, the
Anderson Series has been one of the most prestigious and anticipated events on
the GLC’s calendar. The program continues to be offered free of charge, but
space is limited. The following
presentations are schedule to be held on the dates indicated:
MUNICIPAL FINANCE - February 11 INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING - April 8 CAMPAIGN FINANCE - April 29 EDUCATION REFORM AND THE COMMON
CORE - May 20 All session are held
from 8-9 a.m. on the dates
indicated above in the Assembly Parlor, at the State Capitol, 3rd FL
or telephone 518-445-2329. . Posted by Harvey Randall, Esq.
Defending and indemnifying an educator sued in a civil action arising out of the exercise of his or her duties Defending and indemnifying an educator sued in a civil
action arising out of the exercise of his or her duties 2013 NY Slip Op 52173(U), Supreme Court, Cortland County [Not selected for
publication in the Official Reports]
A lawsuit [Civil Action] was filed on behalf of a female
student alleging five causes of the action: (1) a negligent supervision claim
against the school district; (2) an assault claim against a teacher [Teacher];
(3) a battery claim against Teacher; (4) an intentional infliction of emotional
distress claim against Teacher; and (5) a negligent infliction of emotional
distress claim against Teacher. Upon being served with the summons and complaint, Teacher,
citing Education Law §3028*, asked the school
district provide him with a defense and indemnification in the Civil Action.
The school district notified Teacher that it would provide, through its
liability insurer, a defense of the underlying action and indemnification for
any damages that may be awarded against Teacher on the fifth cause of action —
for negligent infliction of emotional distress — but that it would not provide
indemnification for any damages that may be awarded for the intentional torts
alleged in the second, third, or fourth causes of action. In response to the school district's refusal to provide him
with complete indemnification, Teacher filed an Article 78 petition seeking a
court order directing the school district to so provide such indemnification. The school district
moved, without answering Teacher’s petition, for summary judgment and dismissal
of his petition as a matter of law. Education Law §3811.1, in pertinent part, provides that in
the event a superintendent, principal, member of the teaching or supervisory
staff, member of a committee on special education or subcommittee thereof,
surrogate parent as defined in the regulations of the commissioner of
education, or any trustee or member of the board of education of a school
district or non-instructional employee of any school district other than the
city school district of the city of New York or any board of cooperative
educational services shall defend any action or proceeding, other than a
criminal prosecution or an action or proceeding brought against him by a school
district or board of cooperative educational services hereafter brought against
him, including proceedings before the commissioner of education, arising out
of the exercise of his powers or the performance of his duties under this
chapter,** all his reasonable costs and
expenses, as well as all costs and damages adjudged against him … [emphasis
Addressing the school district’ motion to dismiss Teacher's
claim for full indemnification in the Civil Action, Supreme Court said that it
may properly consider the merits of Teacher’s petition “because the dispositive
facts are undisputed and the parties had ample opportunity to present their
respective arguments”, noting that such a motion to dismiss must be granted
where the petition and supporting papers fail to allege facts sufficient to
support the alleged claim. The Education Law §3811(1), said the court, requires the
school district defend Teacher in a civil actions arising out of the exercise
of his duties and indemnify him from any resulting damages. The issue of
whether the alleged conduct on which the Civil Action is based comes within the
provisions of Education Law §3811(1) as having been within the discharge of
Teacher's professional duties as an employee of the school district is for
school district to decide in the first instance. The school district’s
determination in this regard may be set aside only if it lacks a factual basis
and, therefore, is arbitrary and capricious.
An employee's actions are within the scope of his or her
employment only if the purpose of such acts is to further the employer's
interest, or to carry out the duties owed to the employer. Here the school
district concluded that Teacher's actions with respect to the fifth cause of
action set out in the Civil Action was within the scope of his employment and,
therefore, offered a defense of the entire Civil Action but limited its duty to
indemnify Teacher with respect to the fifth cause of action. In this regard, the court said that the fact that some of
the alleged conduct may have arisen in Teacher's performance of his duties does
not require that he be indemnified for damages based on conduct that exceeds
the scope of his employment. With respect to the allegations on which the
second, third and fourth causes of action are based the school district
concluded that such conduct is not within the scope of Teacher's employment. With respect to Causes of Actions 2, 3 and 5, Supreme Court
held that there was no basis for concluding that Teacher's conduct, allegedly
constituting an intentional tort, amounted to acting in good faith or that such
conduct was merely the result of Teacher’s inartfully trying to fulfill his
duties. Similarly, said the court, no reasonable argument may be
made that such conduct either furthers the school district's legitimate
interests or was required for Teacher to carry out his duties.
Finding that the school district had a rational basis for
concluding that the conduct alleged in Causes of Action 2, 3 and 4 were not
performed within the scope of Teacher's employment, the court ruled that the
school district has no duty to indemnify Teacher with respect to those three
causes of action. Supreme Court then “ordered that [the school district]
provide Teacher with a defense of the underlying action and indemnity for
damages arising from the fifth cause of action asserted therein” and dismissed
the remainder of Teacher’s petition with prejudice. * Teacher’s notice of
petition and relief sought was deemed amended to conform to the proof (see
CPLR 3025[c]), by changing "3028" to "3811" on the
representation that citing 3028 was a scrivener’s error.
** The court noted that the
phrase utilized in Education Law § 3811 — "arising out of the exercise of
his powers or the performance of his duties under this chapter" — is
equivalent to the term "scope of employment," "scope of
employment," "discharge of duties," "performance of
duties," and similar phrases are interchangeable citing Segal-Cotler v
Board of Education, 20 NY3d 671.
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_52173.htm
An administrative disciplinary penalty that is within the
discretion of the reviewing agency to impose will not be disturbed by the court
The Board of Regents suspended an individual’s [LPN] license to practice as a
licensed practical nurse in New York for two years following her pleading
guilty to petit larceny to satisfy charges against her for fraudulently
obtaining unemployment insurance benefits.LPN was sentenced to three years of probation and ordered to
pay restitution in the amount of $17,860.50.
The State Education Department's Office of Professional
Discipline then sought to impose an administrative disciplinary penalty on LPN
based on her criminal conviction.* Following a hearing, the Office of Professional Discipline
advocated for a revocation of LPN's license. However, the Regents Review
Committee recommended that LPN's license be suspended for two years. The Board of
Regents accepted the Review Committee's recommendation. LPN sued, challenging the “appropriateness
of the penalty” imposed on her by the Board of Regents.
Applying the Pell Doctrine,**
the Appellate Division said that an administrative penalty that is within the
discretion of the reviewing agency to impose will not be disturbed unless it is
so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one's sense of fairness. Here, said the court, notwithstanding the recommendation of
the Office of Professional Discipline, the Board, considering mitigating
circumstances: the lack of any direct relation between LPN's misconduct and her
work as a licensed practical nurse, and LPN’s “genuine remorse,” determined
that determined that a significant suspension of LPN’s license was warranted
“based on the amount of money stolen over a 10-month period.”
LPN had argued that, in addition to these factors, the
economic impact of the suspension on her family should be taken into
consideration. However the Appellate Division said that the record indicates
that the Board was aware of LPN’s financial situation. Under the circumstances, including LPN's admitted breach of
the standards of honesty and integrity expected of a professional, the court
said that the penalty imposed by the Board of Regents was not so disproportionate to her offense as to
shock one's sense of fairness and dismissed LPN’s appeal.
§6509[5][a][i] indicates that “Being convicted of committing an act
constituting a crime under: (i) New York State law” constitutes professional
misconduct. ** Matter of Pell v Board of
Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck,
Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222
Finding that Educator “lacked good moral character” results in revocation of her teaching license Finding that Educator “lacked good moral character”
results in revocation of her teaching license 2013 NY Slip Op 08318, Appellate
After students complained that a high school teacher
[Educator] was exhibiting favoritism towards certain male students and sending
text messages to one male student, the school principal advise Educator about
her behavior and that she should avoid even appearances of impropriety. The following year, similar complaints led to an investigation
and the superintendent placing Educator on administrative leave. Educator was
allowed to return from leave after she agreed “to follow a teacher improvement
plan that required, among other things, that she not meet alone with students.”
The plan also suggested that she avoid exchanging communications of a personal
nature or engaging in activities beyond the boundaries of an appropriate
student/teacher relationship. Because Educator did not reform her behavior, the district
initiated dismissal proceedings whereupon Educator resigned from her position. Ultimately the State Department of Education initiated an
investigation into Educator 's moral character*
and issued a notice of substantial question of moral character. Educator
requested a hearing, following which the panel found that Educator lacked good
moral character because she had engaged in inappropriate contact with a student
and disregarded a directive from the superintendent. The majority of the panel
recommended that Educator’s teaching certificate be revoked. The Commissioner of Education agreed with the panel findings
regarding Educator’s lack of good moral character and revoked her teaching
certificate.** Following Supreme Court’s dismissed Educator 's CPLR Article
78 petition seeking annulment of the Commissioner's determination, Educator
The Appellate Division said the finding that Educator lacked
good moral character was not arbitrary or capricious. As an example of the
information in the record, the Appellate Division noted that Educator's phone
records and testimony from an Education Department investigator established
that Educator had exchanged over 1,800 text messages with a particular male
student between September and May, with 268 of them sent between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The court commented that “Although the content of the
messages and calls is unknown, and [Educator] testified that none of it was
inappropriate, the sheer volume of messages between a student and teacher
raised red flags.” The decision reports that “In her testimony, [Educator]
acknowledged that her contact with students was not proper because it blurred
the boundaries of the teacher/student relationship, but she used her testimony
as an opportunity to justify her behavior or blame the students” and “Educator
continued exchanging messages after being warned, disciplined and resigning her
position for her nonprofessional contact with students, indicating that she did
not truly understand or appreciate the improper nature of her extensive
personal contact with students.”
The Appellate Division ruled that the Commissioner of
Education did not abuse his discretion in imposing the penalty of revocation,
as that penalty was not shocking or disproportionate to Educator's conduct.
* See 8 NYCRR 83.1,
Determination of good moral character.
** Education Law §305.7
provides, in pertinent part, that “The commissioner may annul upon cause shown
to his or her satisfaction any certificate of qualification granted to a
teacher by any authority whatever….”
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_08318.htm
Governor Cuomo to launch a citizen preparedness corps training
program on February 1, 2014
Governor Cuomo believes that more New Yorkers than ever need to be prepared and
be trained to respond in the event of an emergency. His goal: Provide 100,000
citizens with the tools they need to be ready and able to help their families
and neighbors during emergencies
To achieve this, on February 1, 2014 the Governor will launch the Citizen
Preparedness Corps Training Program that will train some 100,000 New Yorkers in
the proper preparation for emergencies or disasters by December 31, 2014. The Governor
explained that the program seeks to provide citizens of the State with the
tools and resources to prepare for emergencies and disasters and to be able to respond and attain,
as quickly as possible, to pre-disaster conditions in the event New York
experiences a natural disasters. Citizen Preparedness Corps training will begin on Saturday, February 1st in
Richmond and Suffolk Counties at:
Space is limited, and those wishing to participate must register in advance.
Pre-registration for the training session is available at: http://www.nyprepare.gov/aware-prepare/nysprepare/
Training sessions will be led by New York National Guard personnel, working
with experts from the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services’
Office of Emergency Management and Office of Fire Prevention and Control. All
training sessions will be coordinated with local county emergency management
A key component of this training effort is the distribution of Citizen
Preparedness Corps Response Kits that contain key items to assist individuals
in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. Each training participant [limited to one kit per family] will receive a free Citizen
Preparedness Corps Response Starter Kit. The Starter Kit includes a plastic drop cloth; light
stick; a First Aid Kit; a face mask; safety goggles; an AM/FM pocket
radio with batteries; six packs of drinking water; six food bars; a regular
flashlight and two D batteries; an emergency blanket; duct tape; work gloves; and a water bottle. As
part of the training, participants will receive information about the other
supplies and personal information that they should add to their personal
Response Kit.
Highlights in New York State’s proposed Executive Budget 2014-2015 concerning the State's Workforce
Highlights in New York State’s proposed Executive Budget
2014-2015 concerning the State's Workforce
Source – Office of
the Director of the Budget
Overview - the State’s Workforce -
reflects collective bargaining agreements with 90 percent of the State
workforce that has resulted in initial savings of $300 million and on-going
health benefit savings of $230 million. The size of the State workforce is
expected to be relatively stable in 2014-15, following a significant period of
deliver services to the public and manage a range of facilities and provider
networks.They oversee and
administer billions of dollars in program funding and capital projects. There
are 179,759 State employees employed in Executive agencies, the SUNY and CUNY
systems and in the Offices of the Attorney General and State Comptroller. The number of positions
in agencies directly controlled by the Executive will have declined by 8,239
(6.5percent) between the period December 2010 to the end of 2014-15, from
27,392 to 119,153.
Approximately 94
percent of the State workforce is unionized; there are 10 employee unions and
14 negotiating units. In addition, approximately 10,800 employees are
considered Management/Confidential (M/C) and are not represented by a union. State employees
receive an average compensation (salary and other pay) of $66,993 plus fringe
benefits, totaling $104,60.
Cost-Effective State Workforce
settled collective bargaining agreements with 90 percent of the entire
workforce and nearly all of the workforce that is subject to direct Executive
control. these agreements yielded significant wage and benefit savings,
No general salary
increases for three years (2011-12 through 2013-14);
Two percent general
salary increases in 2014-15, as well as in 2015-16 for CSEA, NYSCOPBA, Council
82, and UUP;
A two-year temporary
reduction in employee compensation; and Increases to
employee/retiree health benefit premium shares, copays, out-of-network
deductibles and coinsurance that save nearly $230 million annually. In 2012-13, the
State enacted Tier VI pension reform to help control increasing retirement
costs for State government, local governments and school districts. As of April
1, 2012, all newly hired public employees belong to Tier VI. This new pension
tier requires employees to contribute, depending upon annual salary, between 3
percent and 6 percent of their salary toward their pension; raises the retirement
age for non-uniformed employees from 62 to 63; reduces the pension multiplier
so that a 30-year employee, for example, will have a 55 percent pension benefit
instead of a 60 percent benefit; extends the Final Average Salary period from 3
to 5 years; and places a $15,000 cap on overtime factored in the calculation of
Final Average Salary. In addition, Tier VI provides new employees who do not
belong to a bargaining unit and earn more than $75,000 per year the option of
enrolling in a defined contribution plan. It is estimated this reform will
significantly diminish long-term pension costs, saving the State, local
governments and school districts more than $80 billion over the next 30 years.
calendar year 2013, the State commenced the provision of prescription drug
coverage to its Medicare eligible retirees through a Part D Employer Group
Waiver Plan (EGWP). This will facilitate the maximization of Federal Medicare
reimbursement, thereby reducing the State's Other Post-Employment Benefits
(OPEB) liabilities from $59 billion to $54 billion without reducing current
Finally, the State's
employee and retiree health plan, the Empire Plan, is now entirely
self-insured. The medical component of the Plan became self-insured on January
1, 2013, and the hospital, prescription drug and mental health components
became self-insured on January 1, 2014. Previously, the State paid a set annual
premium to its health insurance carriers to fund benefit claims.
arrangement, the State assumes full responsibility for the payment of benefit
claims. This allows the State, local governments and public authorities (and
their employees and retirees) to avoid paying annual New York State and certain
Federal Affordable Care Act taxes, fees and assessments. Proposed 2014-15
Budget Actions Eliminate
Reimbursement of Supplemental Medicare Part B Premiums for Higher Income State
growth in the area of employee and retiree health benefits is nearly 7 percent,
or roughly $200 million. Retirees account for about 45 percent of such
spending, or $90 million. Currently, to minimize the cost of retiree health
benefits, upon turning 65 all retirees participating in the New York State
Health Insurance Plan (NYSHIP) are required to enroll in Medicare Part B
(Medical Insurance Coverage).
To further curtail
retiree health benefit spending growth, the Executive Budget will eliminate
State reimbursement of the additional monthly Federal Medicare Part B
premium–the Income Related Medicare Adjustment Amounts (IRMAA) – whichhas been paid by
higher-income retirees since 2007. The State will continue to reimburse the
regular Federal premium of $104.90 per month in 2014. The additional IRMAA
premiums are paid by single retirees who earn more than $85,000 per year and
married retirees who earn more than $170,000 per year. This demographic
consists of less than five percent of 145,000 State retirees and dependents
with Medicare coverage. Depending upon income bracket, the additional IRMAA
premiums range from $42.00 to $230.00 per month in 2014. This action will take
effect on January 1, 2014, resulting in savings of $1.7 million in 2014-15, but
will grow to over $7 million on a full annual basis in 2017-18.
Briefing Book – [By Section]
(Click on text highlighted in color to
access the specific material listed.) Table of Contents Director’s
Message (PDF, 150KB)
Plan Summary (PDF, 369KB)
Reform, Revenue Actions and STAR (PDF, 285KB)
New York for a New Reality (PDF, 116KB)
Public Trust (PDF, 111KB)
Development (PDF, 243KB)
and Arts (PDF, 119KB)
and Energy (PDF, 217KB)
Care (PDF, 126KB)
Education (PDF, 121KB)
Services (PDF, 122KB)
Government (PDF, 270KB)
Hygiene (PDF, 185KB)
Safety (PDF, 197KB)
Workforce (PDF, 114KB)
The entire text of the Briefing Book is posted on the
http://publications.budget.ny.gov/eBudget1415/fy1415littlebook/BriefingBook.pdf
Monetary penalty assessed against workers’ compensation
benefit claimant’s attorney
2013 NY Slip Op 08495, Appellate
This appeal challenged a decision of the Workers'
Compensation Board that, among other things, assessed a monetary penalty counsel
fees of $500 against a workers' compensation benefits applicant’s attorney
pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law §114-a(3)(ii).*
An employee [Claimant] resides in the Bronx and was injured
in the course of his duties as a correction officer at Rikers Island. His claim
for workers' compensation benefits was not disputed. Claimant, however, "request[ed]," on a form
provided by his attorney, that all hearings in his case be conducted at a hearing
site in the City of White Plains, Westchester County. The form asserting that
his "request MUST BE GRANTED" pursuant to "Board Rule 10.01(1)(c)."
The Workers' Compensation Law Judge found no reasonable
ground had been established for a change of venue, noting that "Board Rule
10.01" did not exist and that counsel for claimant had previously been
warned that she would be sanctioned if she thereafter relied upon this purported rule as the basis
for a change of venue application. Ultimately the Workers’ Compensation Board found the award
of counsel fees under §114-a(3)(ii) to be proper and increased the $250 assessment
set by the Law Judge to $500. The Appellate Division said that the sole issue in this appeal was whether the assessment of reasonable counsel fees against counsel for
claimant was warranted. Affirming the Board decision, the court said that Workers'
Compensation Law §114-a(3)(ii) permits the Board to assess reasonable counsel
fees against counsel where a proceeding before it has "been instituted or
commenced without reasonable ground." The court noted that [1] counsel for claimant had previously
been warned that seeking a change of venue based upon a nonexistent
"Board Rule" would subject her to sanctions; [2] she elected to do so
in this proceeding notwithstanding such earlier warning; [3] White Plains had
no obvious connection to claimant or the accident that led to this claim; and
[4] the Board found that counsel had not advanced any legitimate reason for a
change of venue. Finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's
determination to assess reasonable counsel fees against counsel for claimant
pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law §114-a(3)(ii), the Appellate Division
sustained the Board ruling.
* The sole issue in this
appeal is whether the assessment of counsel fees against claimant's attorney was warranted. As those fees were directly assessed against counsel, counsel
is the party in interest pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law §23 and
"should have filed the notice of appeal on her own behalf." The Wolfe decision is posted on the Internet at:
also, Banton v New York City Dept. of Corr. at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_08494.htm
v Administration for Children Servs., at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_08500.htm
Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending January 25, 2014
State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending January 25, 2014
Click on text highlighted in color to access the full report DiNapoli: DOT Efforts to Police Trucking
Companies Falling Short
The state Department of Transportation is not adequately monitoring whether
commercial carriers whose vehicles or drivers have been taken off the road
because of violations are making needed repairs or corrections, potentially
putting the public at risk, according to an audit
released January 22, 2014 by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. DiNapoli: Binghamton City School Finances
Prudent budgeting and proactive financial planning by officials in the
Binghamton City School District have helped to improve the district’s fiscal
condition, according to an
audit issued January 24, 2014 by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.
DiNapoli Announces State Contract &
Payment Actions for December
State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced Thursday his office reviewed
2,193 contracts valued at $9.8 billion and approved more than 2.3 million
payments worth $11 billion in December 2013. His office rejected 205 contract
transactions valued at $358 million and 1,390 payments valued at $1.9 million
due to fraud, waste and other improprieties.
completed audits of the Albany
Leadership Charter High School for Girls; the Charter
School for Applied Technologies;
the Eugenio
Maria de Hostos Charter School;
Central School District;
Charter School; the Oracle
Charter School; the Southside
Academy Charter School; and the True
North Rochester Preparatory Charter School.
New York State Offers New Exam For State Employment Opportunities
New York State Offers New Exam For State Employment
New York State’s Department of Civil Service has announced a new examination program for job seekers with Bachelor’s
degrees. The examination will be used to fill over one hundred
entry-level professional titles in a range of disciplines. College
seniors expecting to earn a Bachelor’s degree by September 1, 2014 are also
The PCO exam qualifies job seekers for general administrative
titles. Job seekers can further establish their eligibility for
select titles in areas such as health and human services, environmental
conservation, science and finance by identifying concentrations of study or
“The new application and questionnaire process expedites
establishing minimum qualifications for a significant number of State
employment opportunities,” said Civil Service Commissioner Jerry Boone. “We have eliminated the need for numerous specific exams by creating one test
that will qualify candidates for a host of general positions. Candidates may also qualify for more specialized positions based on
individual educational or work experience.”
After applying on-line, qualified job seekers will be
scheduled to take the written PCO exam on either March 22nd or 23rd 2014. Applications must be entered on-line by Wednesday, February 5th. An
application fee of $35 is required. To view the introductory video,
questionnaire and application, visit www.cs.ny.gov
and click on “Check out Professional Career Opportunities.”
The “Rule of Necessity” permits a tribunal, the members of
which could be affected by the decision, to decide a case or controversy
Pines, et. al. v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 00335,
In deciding an action initiated by Emily Pines and other
judges, Supreme Court that held that “the compensation of judges and justices
of the Unified Court System of the State of New York was duly increased
pursuant to the Laws of 2009, Chapter 51, §3, and that the [State] is obligated
to pay the judges and justices of the Unified Court System of the State of New
York in accordance therewith retroactive to April 1, 2009."
After conceding that “more than a decade had passed
since the plaintiffs and their colleagues in the New York State judiciary had
received a pay raise authorized by the Legislature,” and setting out the relevant
history leading to Pines’ initiating this litigation, the Appellate Division
recognized that “members of this Court have a pecuniary interest in this case
and will be affected by the outcome of this appeal.” The court then explained that "The participation of an
independent, unbiased adjudicator in the resolution of disputes is an essential
element of due process of law, guaranteed by the Federal and State
Constitutions" and “in order to ensure the dignity of the judiciary and
maintain the integrity of the administration of justice, [o]rdinarily,
when a judge has an interest in litigation, recusal is warranted." That said, the Appellate Division noted that "[t]he
Rule of Necessity provides a narrow exception to this principle, requiring a biased
adjudicator to decide a case if and only if the dispute cannot otherwise be
heard." Here, said the court, "the self-interest implicated by the issues
raised on appeal would provide grounds for disqualifying not only the justices
of this Court, but any other judicial body which might replace it." As “the
recusal of the members of this Court, and those of every other court in the
Unified Court System, would leave the plaintiffs without a legal remedy, the
‘Rule of Necessity’ compels us to decide this appeal on the merits,
notwithstanding our personal stake in the litigation.”
The Appellate Division then explained that, notwithstanding
Supreme Court's conclusion to the contrary, “there is no language in the
statute that adjusts the salary schedules of the various judges and justices of
this state. As in prior years, the plain language of the statute merely directs
that a certain sum necessary for adjusting judicial compensation be set
aside—what has previously been recognized as a ‘dry appropriation.'" Rejecting Pines’ position is that the statute must have
adjusted the rates of judicial compensation because it referenced the purpose
of the appropriation, the court concluded that this argument is not actually
based on the plain language of the statute but rather “rests on an inference
drawn from a reference to the appropriation's purpose.” In the words of the
Appellate Division, … the plaintiffs' plain language argument would require us
to interpret the statute in a manner that would render it unconstitutional.”
Further, the court noted that in deciding this appeal under
the "Rule of Necessity," it is “constrained to discern and apply the will of the elected members of the
Legislature and not our own perceptions of what might be equitable,” quoting
Alexander Hamilton writing in The Federalist, "[i]t can be of no weight to
say that the courts . . . may substitute their own pleasure to the
constitutional intentions of the legislature" (Hamilton, Federalist No.
Without addressing “the wisdom of the Legislature's decision
or the manner in which it was carried out,” the Appellate Division concluded
that the Legislature did not adjust judicial compensation through the enactment
of the Laws of 2009, Chapter 51, §3” and reversed the Supreme Court’s ruling
“on the law.”
following a voluntary absence due to illness or disability
Source: New York State Department Of Civil Service, State
Personnel Management Manual, Advisory Memorandum #14-01 dated January 22, 2014
Mark F. Worden, Associate Attorney, New York State
Department of Civil Service, has distributed a memorandum, Advisory Memorandum
#14-01, addressing “Return to Work Evaluations and Civil Service Law Section 72
Due Process Procedures.”
Mr. Worden explains that the New York State Court of Appeals
decided two cases, Sheeran v. New York State Department of Transportation* and
Birnbaum v. New York State Department of Labor (18 NY3d 61) in which it ruled
that the procedural safeguards set out in Civil Service Law (CSL) §72 apply
when an employee who is voluntarily on leave due to personal illness or a
disability that is not work-related within the meaning of the Workers’
Compensation Law is prevented from returning to work by the appointing
authority. Such a refusal to allow the employee to return to work converts his
or her voluntary leave into an
involuntary leave. Accordingly, the appointing authority is then required to
follow the procedures set out in CSL §72.1 or CSL §72.5, as the case may be,
with respect to such an employee..
N.B. The Memorandum cautions that "It is essential that any employee denied a return to duty pending a hearing be provided with written notice that such action is being taken pursuant to CSL §72(5) and notified of the reasons for such action." Mr. Worden also advises that “… all appointing authorities
must review their return to work procedures to ensure that they are consistent
with these Court of Appeals decisions” and follow the guidelines set out in
Advisory Memorandum #14-01**
Although Mr. Worden’s memorandum is addressed to State
Department and Agency “Personnel and Human Resources Directors,” and Sheeran
and Birnbaum were employed by State Departments at the time they voluntarily placed themselves on leave, it is instructive to
appointing authorities of political subdivisions of the State as well.
* NYPPL’s summary of the Sheeran and Birnbaum decisions is posted on the
================================ General Municipal Law §§207-a and 207-c - Disability Leave for fire, police
and other public sector personnel - a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering
General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and providing benefits thereunder.
For more information click on http://section207.blogspot.com/ ================================ .
Recent decisions reported by the New
York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH]
Issued during January 2014 [Click on text highlighted in color to access the text of the decision.]
OATH Administrative Law Judges making findings of fact and
recommendations as to the disposition of the matter.
Correction officer was arrested as a result of a drug bust
operation. After criminal charges against the officer were dismissed,
Department of Correction (DOC) brought a disciplinary proceeding against the
officer accusing him of knowingly driving a family friend to a drug transaction
and subsequently possessing cocaine in his car. ALJ Kevin F. Casey found that
DOC failed to prove that the officer knew he was driving a family friend to
purchase drugs or that the officer knowingly possessed the drugs later found in
his car. ALJ Casey recommended the dismissal of the charge. OATH Index No. 265/14 [Comm’r Decision - pending] http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/13_Cases/14-265.pdf
Correction officer admitted to using excessive force by
stomping on an inmate's head after the inmate had been subdued with his face to
the floor and his hands cuffed behind his back. Respondent's actions caused the
inmate to sustain lacerations to his chin and loss of a front tooth. As
mitigation, respondent asserted that on his way to work, he learned that his
best friend had been murdered, and that this news upset his equilibrium.
Finding that neither disruptive behavior by the subdued inmate nor the murder
of respondent's friend, if true, was mitigation for respondent's conduct, ALJ
Ingrid M. Addison recommended termination of his employment. OATH Index No. 156/14, Comm'r Decision - adopted, http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/13_Cases/14-156.pdf
The Department of Environmental Protection brought
disciplinary charges against a project manager for working longer than his
7-hour shift, reporting late to a storehouse, and falsely stating that he made
a vehicle damage report. ALJ John B. Spooner found that respondent worked
longer than a 7-hour day and recommended a one-day suspension. ALJ Spooner
dismissed the other charges, noting that petitioner’s counsel displayed some
animus toward respondent and his efforts to defend himself. ALJ Spooner noted
that discipline of one of respondent's witnesses for appearing early at the
tribunal on the day of her testimony was “extraordinary” and may have been
intended to punish the witness or to discourage her from testifying. OATH Index No. 181/14, Comm’r Decision - rejected in
part, (adopting sustained charge, rejecting dismissal of
other charges, and increasing penalty to 30-day suspension without pay). http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/14_Cases/14-181.pdf
Apportioning liability for workers’ compensation benefits among the claimant’s various employers Apportioning liability for workers’
compensation benefits among the claimant’s various employers 2013 NY Slip Op 07244, Appellate Division, Third Department
In some situations it becomes necessary
for the Workers’ Compensation Board to consider the issue of apportionment of
liability among a claimant's prior employers in accordance with Workers'
Compensation Law §44.*. The employee [Employee] began working for the Town
in 2002. Prior to that, she had performed secretarial services for
various employers, since 1966. In 2004 Employee sought medical treatment,
complaining of pain in her hands and a weak grip, and she was diagnosed with
carpal tunnel syndrome. In 2007, Employee filed a claim for
workers' compensation benefits. Her claim was initially established as an
occupational disease of the left wrist, with a date of disablement of October
1, 2007 and was subsequently amended to include bilateral elbows and right carpal
tunnel syndrome. Employee was awarded a 25% schedule loss of
use of the left hand in 2010 and the Town workers' compensation
carrier sought apportionment of responsibility for liability of the claim with
claimant's two most recent prior employers, covering the years between 1987 and
A Workers' Compensation Law Judge
denied the carrier's request, finding no medical evidence that Employee had contracted
her condition during her prior employment, and the Workers' Compensation Board
affirmed upon administrative review. The Town and its carrier appealed.
The Appellate Division sustained the
Board ruling, explaining that "In determining whether a claim should be
apportioned between previous employers in the same field, the relevant focus is
whether the claimant 'contracted an occupational disease while employed by that
employer.'"
In support of the Board’s
determination, the court said that Employee had testified that she had experienced
some symptoms of pain in her wrists during her previous employments. but did
not seek or receive medical treatment for her condition until 2004. Although an
independent medical examiner opined that "there appears to be a cause for
apportionment" and recommended that the claim should be apportioned 75% to
the Town and 25% to Employee's previous employers, the medical examiner
[1] “did not opine as to when [Employee] contracted her condition” and [2] “offered
no objective medical proof in support of his findings.”
* §44. Liability of employer. The total compensation due shall
be recoverable from the employer who last employed the employee in the employment
to the nature of which the disease was due and in which it was contracted. If,
however, such disease, except silicosis or other dust disease and compressed
air illness or its sequelae [sic - any abnormal condition that follows], was contracted while such employee was in the employment
of a prior employer, the employer who is made liable for the total compensation
as provided by this section, may appeal to the board for an apportionment of such
compensation among the several employers who since the contraction of such
disease shall have employed such employee in the employment to the nature of which
the disease was due. Such apportionment shall be proportioned to the time such
employee was employed in the service of such employers, and shall be determined
only after a hearing, notice of the time and place of which shall have been given
to every employer alleged to be liable for any portion of such compensation. If
the board finds that any portion of such compensation is payable by an employer
prior to the employer who is made liable for the total compensation as provided
by this section, it shall make an award accordingly in favor of the last employer,
and such award may be enforced in the same manner as an award for compensation. The decision is posted on the Internet
at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_07244.htm
An arbitration award can be vacated if the award or order does not resolve the controversy submitted to the arbitrator
An arbitration award can be vacated if the award or order does not
resolve the controversy submitted to the arbitrator
Cheverko, 2013 NY Slip Op 08451, Appellate Division, Second Department
The Westchester County Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc.
filed a CPLR Article 75 petition seeking to confirm three arbitration
awards in which the arbitrator ruled that three individuals [Officers] were entitled
to benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c.*
Westchester County Department of Corrections Commissioner
Kevin M. Cheverko appealed Supreme Court denial of his motion to vacate those
awards. The Appellate Division granted the Commissioner Cheverko’s
appeal challenging the Supreme Court’s decision, explaining that an arbitration
award is indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR §7511 and subject to
vacatur "only if it leaves the parties unable to determine their rights
and obligations, if it does not resolve the controversy submitted or if it
creates a new controversy."
In this instance, explained the court, the arbitrator’s
awards providing the three individuals with benefits pursuant to General
Municipal Law §207-c were indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR§7511 “as
they did not address whether each Officer sustained a disability.” Reversing the order “insofar as appealed from,” the
Appellate Division said that the matter was to be remitted to the arbitrator “for
further proceedings and a determination as to whether each officer sustained a
* General Municipal Law §207-c
provides for the payment of salary, wages, medical and hospital expenses of law
enforcement personnel suffering injuries or illness incurred in the performance
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_08451.htm
- a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and providing benefits thereunder. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/3916.html
================================ . . Posted by Harvey Randall, Esq.
reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas
P. DiNapoli during the week ending January 18, 2014
DiNapoli: 87 School
Eighty–seven school
districts, 13 percent of school districts statewide, have been
designated as fiscally stressed under State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli’s
Fiscal Stress Monitoring System. DiNapoli’s office evaluated 674 school
districts with fiscal years ending on June 30, 2013.
DiNapoli: Buffalo’s
Financial Condition Improves
The city of Buffalo’s finances have stabilized in recent years because of
careful budget planning, the oversight of a fiscal control board and increased
state aid, according to a report issued
Monday, January 13, 2014 by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The report is
part of a series of fiscal profiles on municipalities across the state.
DiNapoli: School District
New York’s school districts have faced major fluctuations in their federal and
state aid over the last decade and revenue growth was nearly flat the last
three years, averaging only 1.3 percent, according to a report
issued Tuesday by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The report is part of
DiNapoli’s fiscal stress initiative which is focusing greater attention on the
issues that contribute to the financial pressures on local governments and
DiNapoli and Investor Group
Reach Shareholder Agreement with FirstEnergy
FirstEnergy, an Ohio–based energy producer, has agreed to produce a
comprehensive report on the company’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced January 15, 2014. As a
result, a shareholder resolution
co–filed by DiNapoli, Connecticut Treasurer Denise L. Nappier on behalf of the
Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, and investment group As You Sow
DiNapoli: Some Taxpayer
Check–Off Donations Not Utilized for Worthy Causes
New Yorkers have contributed more than $51 million for worthy causes through
check–offs on their personal income tax forms, but these funds often sit
unused, according to a report issued January
15, 2014 by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. More than $14
million has accumulated in six check–off funds, with nearly 90 percent of that
for health–related causes including breast cancer, prostate cancer and
DiNapoli: State Tax
Receipts Below Projections Three Quarters Through Fiscal Year
State tax receipts for the first three quarters of the fiscal year were $534
million below the latest Financial Plan projections, according to a quarterly report on state
finances released Friday by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. Comptroller DiNapoli
Releases School Audits
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli on January 15, 2014 announced his
office completed audits of the Hampton Bays Union Free
School District; the Harpursville Central School
District; the Roosevelt Children’s Academy
Charter School; and the South Colonie Central School
Releases Municipal Audits
office completed audits of: the Afton Hose Company Emergency
Squad; the Town of Hampton; the Town of Hopewell;
the City of Rye; Town of Sullivan;
and the Washington County Sheriff’s
Releases State Audits
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced on January 17, 2014 the
following audits have been issued: the Research Foundation of the
State University of New York; the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey; the New York State Health
Insurance Program: Empire BlueCross and BlueShield; the Department of Health;
the Office of Court
Administration; and the Department of Health.
Electronic books [e-books] focusing on New York
State and Municipal Public Personnel Law: The
State. A 1900+ page e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html
The Layoff,
Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant laws, rules and
regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. For more
Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - A 600+ page guide to penalties imposed on public
employees in New York State found guilty of selected acts of misconduct. For
more information, click on http://nypplarchives.blogspot.com/
General Municipal Law§§ 207-a and 207-c -
Disability Leave for fire, police and other public sector personnel - a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering