Claims for certain health insurance benefits and the liquidation
of sick leave credits upon retirement rejected
Decision 1. Suttlehan v Town of New Windsor, 2012 NY Slip Op
07292, Appellate Division, Second Department [re: Health Insurance]
Decision 2. Suttlehan v Town of New Windsor, 2012 NY Slip Op
07293, Appellate Division, Second Department [re: Sick Leave Credits]
Town of New Windsor
Town Justice Donald J. Suttlehan sued the Town, contending that it was in
breach of contracts when it (1) eliminated his alleged entitlement, upon his
retirement, to fully paid lifetime health care benefits for himself and his
spouse [Decision 1] and (2) failing to pay him for his unused sick-leave
credits upon his retirement [Decision 2].
On January 7, 2009, the Town adopted resolutions
prospectively awarding Justice Suttlehan [a] “fully paid lifetime medical benefits for himself and his spouse”
upon his retirement and [b] granted certain post-retirement health-care benefits
to elected officials with eight years or more of service. On May 6, 2009 the
Town adopted a resolution revoking its January 7, 2009 action with respect to providing “lifetime health care benefits” and Town modified its
earlier “unused sick-leave” resolution in accordance with a new schedule.
Justice Suttlehan retired in July 2009. He then filed petitions
in Supreme Court challenging the Town’s actions that he alleged truncated certain benefits to which he claimed he was entitled upon his retirement..
With respect to his claim to “lifetime medical benefits,”
Justice Suttlehan alleged “breach of contract and promissory estoppel….” He
argued that, among other things, that the Town’s January 7, 2009 resolution
imposed a contractual obligation upon the Town to provide him with lifetime
medical benefits or, in the alternative, that, by adopting the resolution, the
Town became obligated to provide him with those benefits under the theory of
promissory estoppel.
The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court’s
dismissal of Justice Suttlehan’s petition, holding that the Town had met its “prima
facie burden of establishing that [it was] not obligated to provide
lifetime medical benefits to the plaintiff and his spouse, and the plaintiff
failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.”
The Appellate Division said the resolution dated May 6,
2009, which revised Justice Suttlehan’s health-care benefits only with
respect to coverage for claims made, or to be made, subsequent to his
separation from Town employment, was not discriminatory as it was applicable to
various elected officials -- the Town Supervisor, Town Clerk, Superintendent of
Highways, Receiver of Taxes, Town Justices, and members of the Town Board -- as
well as to the Town’s judiciary.
Rejecting Justice Suttlehan’s argument that the resolution
violated his rights pursuant to the separation of powers doctrine or the compensation clause of the New York Constitution, the Appellate Division noted
that the resolution addressed the prospective reduction of a municipal
official's health benefits only after his or her retirement, not the reduction
in the salary or benefits of a justice during his or her term in office.
In any event, said the Appellate Division, "[a]
municipal resolution is, in general, a unilateral action that is temporary in
nature and, thus, it does not create any vested contractual rights,"
citing Aeneas McDonald Police Benevolent Assn. v City of Geneva, 92 NY2d
326.
As to Justice Suttlehan’s cause of action to recover damages
for breach of contract with respect to the liquidation of his unused sick-leave credits, Supreme Court
held that he was entitled to payment for 397 unused sick days, The Town
appealed the court’s decision.
The Appellate Division vacated the Supreme Court’s ruling,
holding that "In general, a public employee whose employment has
terminated may not recover the monetary value of unused . . . sick time in the
absence of statutory or contractual authority."
The Town, said the court, had met its prima facie
burden of showing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by
demonstrating that there was no statutory or contractual authority for the
relief sought by Justice Suttlehan and Supreme Court should have dismissed the Justice’s
cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract with regard payment
for his unused sick-leave credits.
The “health insurance” decision is posted on the Internet
at:
The “sick leave” decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07293.htm
