Source: https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2016/07/providing-for-defense-and.html
Timestamp: 2017-03-28 00:23:00
Document Index: 582688109

Matched Legal Cases: ['§18', '§18', '§3811', '§18', '§3811', '§3811', '§18', '§3811', '§3811', '§18', '§18', '§3811', '§3811', '§18', '§3811', '§18', '§3811', '§3811', '§17', '§19']

New York Public Personnel Law: Providing for the defense and indemnification of public officers and employees named as defendants in certain litigation skip to main |
Providing for the defense and indemnification of public officers and employees named as defendants in certain litigation Providing for the
defense and indemnification of public officers and employees named as defendants
in certain litigation Scimeca v Brentwood Union Free Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 05157, Appellate Division, Second Department
The Brentwood Union Free School District [Brentwood] and
a number of Brentwood employees* [Employees] were named as respondents in complaint filed with
the New York State Division of Human Rights [SDHR] by another Brentwood employee [Complainant].
Employees sought “defense
and indemnification” by Brentwood and a law firm other than the law firm representing
Brentwood in the SDHR action was designated by Brentwood’s insurance carrier to
represent Employees in the
SDHR proceeding. Employees,
however, perceiving conflict of interest between themselves and Brentwood, employed a different attorney to represent them in the SDHR action. Employees then sought reimbursement
for the fees and litigation expenses they had incurred in defending themselves in the SDHR action from Brentwood, citing Public
Officers Law §18 as authority for such payments.
Brentwood declined to pay the fees and
litigation expenses incurred by Employees as a result of their having employed their own attorney for this purpose. Employees filed an Article 78 petition seeking a court order to compel Brentwood to indemnify them for the legal expenses
they had incurred in defending themselves in the SDHR action.
denied the employees’ petition
and dismissed the proceeding; the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s
Officers Law §18** and Education Law §3811 provide
for a political subdivision of the State to provide for the defense and indemnification of its employees in
certain actions or proceedings. The provisions of Public Officers Law §18, however, only become available to the employees of the political subdivision as the result of the governing body of the political subdivision adopting a law, rule, regulation or resolution [1] providing for such representation and indemnification of its employees at the entities expense and [2] providing for the reimburse employees of any the costs and damages for which the employees are liable, exclusive of punitive or exemplary damages, fines or penalties.
Education Law §3811
applies to officers, the teaching or supervisory staff, and 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. §3811 provides for the defense of such personnel in
any action or proceeding and all of his or her reasonable costs and expenses, as
well as all costs and damages adjudged against him or her other than those incurred [1] in a criminal
prosecution or [2] an action or a proceeding brought against him or her by a school district,
including proceedings before the Commissioner of Education, arising out of the
exercise of his or her powers or the performance of his or her duties under the
decision by the Appellate Division, Brentwood extended the benefits of Public
Officers Law §18 to its employees, but, as that statute specifically
authorizes, specified that "[t]he benefits accorded to Brentwood employees
under Section 18 of the Public Officers Law shall supplement and be available
in addition to defense and indemnification protection conferred by other
enactments or provisions of law," such as Education Law §3811.
Insofar as relevant
in this proceeding, the Appellate Division said:
1. Education Law §3811
does not exclusively govern the retention of counsel for a school district employee entitled to a defense under that
statute and Public Officers Law §18; 2. Public Officers
Law §18(3)(b), applies in the event that either the employer or a court
determines that a conflict of interest exists and permits an employee to obtain an attorney of his or her
choice and that this provision is consistent with Education Law §3811;
3. Education Law §3811 provides
that the trustees or board of education have the right to designate and appoint
legal counsel for an eligible employee as long as it does so within 10 days of
receiving notice of the relevant action or proceeding; otherwise the employee
may select his or her own legal counsel; and 4. The provisions
of Public Officers Law §18 and Education Law §3811 can be read together to
provide that the trustees or the board have the right to designate and appoint
counsel within 10 days of receiving notice of an action or proceeding, unless
the School District and the employee have conflicting interests, in which case
the employee is permitted to select his or her own counsel. Under this reading,
Public Officers Law §18 supplements Education Law §3811 by addressing and
making provision for a specific set of circumstances not addressed in Education Law §3811. That said, the
Appellate Division noted that Brentwood
correctly contended that no conflict of interest existed between Brentwood and Employees with respect to defending the subject SDHR complaint that would
otherwise entitle Employees to select private counsel, payable by the School District
that the SDHR complaint, which was asserted against Brentwood and Employees jointly, did not allege
that Employees committed any acts outside the scope of their employment
and, significantly, Brentwood, in its response to the complaint, did not assert
that Employees were acting
outside the scope of their employment, or that they acted improperly in any
way. As Brentwood “categorically
denied all of the allegations in the complaint, countered each of the
allegations with detailed facts aimed at demonstrating their falsity, and
asserted that it was the Complainant who had threatened and intimidated one of [the Employees], the court concluded that no conflict of interest existed
between Brentwood and Employees
with regard to the subject SDHR complaint that would otherwise have entitled Employees to employ private
counsel, to be paid by Brentwood, under a theory that a "conflict of interest" between the parties existed.
Appellate Division, Supreme Court “properly denied, and the proceeding [was] properly
* Although all not all public employees of a public entity are public officers, all public officers of that entity are public employees. ** §17 of the Public Officers Law provides for
the defense and indemnification of officers and employees of the State as the
employer in the event such persons are defendants in a civil action arising out
acts or omissions involving or performed within the scope of their official
duties. §19 of the Public Officers Law addresses so reimbursing an officer or an employee of the State as the
employer named
as a defendant in a criminal action arising out of acting within the scope
of his or her public employment or duties upon his or her acquittal or upon the
dismissal of the criminal charges against such officer or employee. The decision is