Webinar: AI Relief, Not Revolution Explore why AI adoption stalls and how to create a more coordinated approach. Save Your Seat
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.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED IN COMPOSING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS.
Apr 24, 2026
The employer's failing seek vacation or modification of an arbitration award within the statutorily prescribed 90 days period requires that the arbitration award be confirmed
Supreme Court denied, in part, an employee organization's petition to confirm an arbitration award. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's ruling on the law, without costs, vacated the modification and confirmed the arbitration award in its entirety.
The Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court should have confirmed "the entirety of the arbitration award", explaining that CPLR §7510-a(a) addresses public sector employee arbitrations and provides that "[t]he court shall confirm an award in a public sector arbitration proceeding upon application of a party made within one year after its delivery to the party, unless an application to vacate or modify the award ... is made within ninety days after the delivery of the award to the party seeking to modify or vacate".
In this instance the employer did not seek to vacate or modify the award within the statutorily prescribed 90 days.
Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court should have confirmed the arbitration award as the employee organization had preserved its claim by explicitly addressing the 90-day limitations period in its petition.
The Appellate Division also noted that the fact that an employee organization is not itself an employee of the employer but rather the representative of the public sector employees in the relevant collective bargaining unit does not change the application of CPLR §7510-a.
In addition, the Appellate Division observed that the legislative history of CPLR §7510-a "does not set forth any rationale for excluding unions from the definition of employees", citing the Assembly Memorandum in Support of the Bill, [Bill Jacket, Chapter 679 of the Laws of 2023].
The Court then directed its Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.
Apr 23, 2026
When may a municipality be said to have assumed a special duty of care with respect to a plaintiff
Appellate Division observed that this appeal presented it with an opportunity to provide "additional clarity" concerning when a municipality may be said to have assumed a special duty of care with respect to a plaintiff thereby subjecting the municipality to liability in negligence for breaching that special duty, and, relatedly, when the municipality may rely on the governmental function immunity defense.
For the reasons set out in the decision of the Appellate Division in the instant matter, the Appellate Division held that a municipality may be said to have assumed a special duty of care with respect to a protected party, or the parent of a protected party, when responding to a request to enforce the "stay away" provisions of a court order such as the one at issue in this case.
The Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court erred when it granted the government defendants' separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
Click HERE to access the decision of the Appellate Division posted on the Internet.
Apr 22, 2026
Individual found guilty of stealing $90,000 in Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) funds
On April 20, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Albany County District Attorney Lee C. Kindlon and New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James announced that a resident of Woodstock, New York was sentenced to five years’ probation for his role in stealing $90,000 in Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) funds to which he was not entitled.
“As technology advances so do fraudsters, and this case shows that collaboration works in holding defendants accountable when they attempt to use deception to steal taxpayer dollars,” Kindlon said. “Kudos to the Comptroller’s Office, New York State Police and our Financial Crimes Unit in uncovering this attempt to defraud the state.”
“This sentencing significantly demonstrates the effectiveness of the measures taken to safeguard the application process for rental assistance. The State Police will continue to work to impede the use of false information to prevent individuals from fraudulently obtaining funds they are not entitled to. I commend the New York State Comptroller’s Office, our State Police members, and Albany County District Attorney’s Office for their combined effort in this sentencing,” James said.
To perpetrate their scheme, the defendants filed a phony application with the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to fraudulently obtain funding through the ERAP.
The ERAP program was created during the COVID-19 pandemic to help medium and low-income households at risk of eviction. Landlords or tenants could apply to OTDA for funds to cover unpaid back rent and future rent payments. If the tenant met the criteria, the payments would be made directly to the landlord.
The New York State Police received a complaint that a brother and his sister received ERAP funds that they were not entitled to. Based on the complaint, a joint investigation was launched by DiNapoli’s office and the State Police.
###
Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. New Yorkers can report allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236 or by emailing a complaint to investigations@osc.ny.gov .
Apr 21, 2026
Court orders terminated probationary employee's reinstatement after employer unable to show the dismissal was made in good faith
Plaintiff initiated an CPLR Article 78 preceding challenged the Nassau County Sheriff's Department's [Department] decision terminating his employment during Plaintiff's probationary employment as a correction officer. Plaintiff had alleged, among other things, that he was terminated in bad faith after he complained about being assigned excessive overtime hours.
Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's petition, in effect annulling the Department's decision to terminate Plaintiff during his probationary period. The Department appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.
Citing Matter of Lane v City of New York, 92 AD3d 786, Appellate Division noted that the employment of a probationary employee may be terminated without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of a demonstration that the termination was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law*. However, said the Appellate Division, "The petitioner bears the burden of presenting competent proof of the alleged bad faith, the violation of statutory or decisional law, or the constitutionally impermissible or illegal purpose", citing Matter of Capece v Schultz, 117 AD3d 1045 and Matter of Young v City of New York, 221 AD3d 721.
The Appellate Division held that the Plaintiff had "met his burden of demonstrating that the determination to terminate his probationary employment was made in bad faith" by establishing that his termination of probationary employment followed a complaint he made regarding being assigned excessive overtime hours and the purported failure of the Sheriff's to comply with Rule 20 of the Sheriff's Department Rules and Regulations, which requires equal distribution of overtime, noting that the Department "failed to establish, or even adequately allege, that the termination of the [Plaintiff's] probationary employment was made in good faith".
Accordingly, the Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court "properly granted the [Plaintiff's] petition and, in effect, annulled the [Department's] determination".
* In York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, the Court of Appeals set out the basic rule concerning the dismissal of probationary employees as follows: “After completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law, or the decision was made in bad faith.”
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Editor in Chief Harvey Randall served as Director of Personnel, State University of New York Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor's Office of Employee Relations; Principal Attorney, Counsel's Office, New York State Department of Civil Service; and Colonel, JAG, Command Headquarters, New York Guard.
Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
CAUTION
Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL.
For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf.
Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law.
Email: publications@nycap.rr.com