The Q3 2026 issue of Governing Magazine is out now. This edition spotlights Governing’s 2026 Public Officials of the Year. Honorees are tackling government’s toughest challenges with pragmatic leadership, fresh ideas and a focus on delivering results that improve people’s lives. Read More.
New York Public Personnel Law
Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State in particular and possibly in other jurisdictions in general.
Sep 5, 2026
Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending September 4, 2026
Sep 4, 2026
Labor Day Weekend Travel Advisory
NEW YORK STATE'S GOVERNOR HOCHUL SUSPENDS CONSTRUCTION-RELATED LANE CLOSURES FOR LABOR DAY WEEKEND
Lane Closures Suspended From Friday, September 4 at 6:00 a.m. to Tuesday, September 8 at 6:00 a.m.
Motorists Urged To Slow Down and Move Over for All Vehicles
Awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party in CPLR Article 78 actions
Plaintiff commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, seeking, inter alia, to be reinstated to his position as a firefighter with the New York City Fire Department [FDNY] and an award of attorneys' fees and costs and disbursements.
Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the Plaintiff's petition which was for reinstatement and directed a hearing on the issue of attorneys' fees and costs. Following the hearing, Supreme Court determined that the Plaintiff was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees in the sum of $28,080, plus costs and disbursements. FDNY and the City appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.
Citing Matter of Smith v New York City Fire Dept., 239 AD3d 870 and other decisions, the Appellate Division said that "The general rule is that in [CPLR] article 78 proceedings, the prevailing party may not collect attorneys' fees from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties or by statute or by court rule".
In the instant matter the Appellate Division held that "since the award of attorneys' fees was not authorized by agreement, statute, or court rule", the Supreme Court improperly awarded attorneys' fees to the Plaintiff.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.