TO SEARCH THIS DATABASE type in a word or phrase in the box in the upper left corner and any material containing the word or phrase will be displayed for your review.
N.B. §22 of the New York State General Construction Law, in pertinent part, provides that “Whenever words of the masculine or feminine gender appear in any law, rule or regulation, unless the sense of the sentence indicates otherwise, they shall be deemed to refer to both male or female persons.” NYPPL follows this protocol.
April 30, 2019
April 29, 2019
Revealing confidential records resulting a youthful offender adjudication distinguished from answering questions about the facts underlying the incident.
The primary advantage of youthful offender treatment, said the court, is "the avoidance of the stigma and practical consequences which accompany a criminal conviction." Further, noted the Appellate Division, CPL §720.35 provides that "youthful offender adjudication is not a judgment of conviction for a crime or any other offense" and consistent with "the statutory goal that eligible youths not be stigmatized by a youthful offender adjudication," provides that records relating to the prosecution shall be sealed.
April 27, 2019
This issue has cases on drug screening, First Amendment, handicap/abilities discrimination: accommodation in general, national origin discrimination, pensions, political activity, retaliatory personnel actions, security clearances, and veterans and other preference laws. View at:
April 26, 2019
A probationary educator may be summarily terminated during his or her probationary period provided it is not unlawful or made in bad faith
** "Police officer" is a position in the Classified Service of the Civil Service. Case law indicates that a probationary employee serving a position in the Classified Service may be summarily terminated at any time after completing his or her minimum period of probation prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation without notice and hearing unless otherwise provided by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law [Civil Service Law Article 14]. In contrast, if the probationer has not yet completed his or her minimum period probation, he or she is entitled to “notice and hearing” as a condition precedent to his or her termination on the theory that the individual is entitled to a minimum period of service to demonstrate his or her ability to satisfactorily perform the duties of the position.
April 25, 2019
The anatomy of a civil rights action involving allegations of failure to accommodate a disability, unlawful discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation
Although the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] provides that reassignment to a vacant position is a reasonable accommodation, it does not require employers to create entirely new positions and it is the employee's burden to show that a reasonable accommodation exists, including the existence of a vacant position for which he or she is qualified.
** This framework requires “(1) the employee's participation in a protected activity; (2) that [the employer] knew of [the employee's] participation in that protected activity; (3) that [the employee] suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that there exists a causal relationship between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.”
April 24, 2019
Determining if a "non-governmental entity" is an "agency" within the meaning of the New York State's Freedom of Information Law and thus subject to its provisions
On occasion, however, a nongovernmental organization may be found to fall within the ambit of the term "agency" as described in FOIL and thus be deemed to be subject to its mandates with respect to the public's access to its records and documents.
Ambulance, said the court is a "not-for-profit corporation" that has contracted with the Cortlandt Ambulance District No. 1 [District], a subsidiary of the Town of
Further, Ambulance receives no funding from the Town or District apart from the agreed upon contract payments and Ambulance is solely responsible for the maintenance and expenses related to its buildings, has the authority to hire staff, who are solely its employees, and it obtains its own workers' compensation policy for coverage of its employees and members. None of Ambulance's personnel are covered by the workers' compensation policy maintained by the District or the Town for their respective employees and volunteers and neither the District nor the Town has authority to review or approve contracts entered into by Ambulance for professional or other services it deems necessary for its operation.
April 23, 2019
A police officer's personnel records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law during and after he or she leaves public service
April 22, 2019
Factors considered by courts in evaluating the disciplinary penalty imposed on an employee found guilty of misconduct
April 19, 2019
Subsequently the assault charges were withdrawn. The officer then sued, seeking a court order directing his reinstatement to his former position, an awarded of back pay and an order directing the Police Department to give him a "name-clearing hearing." Supreme Court dismissed his CPLR Article 78 petition and the officer appealed the ruling to the Appellate Division.
Under the terms of a disciplinary settlement,
Although the employer contended that it terminating Taylor without a hearing was permitted under the terms of the disciplinary settlement agreement, the Appellate Division disagreed and directed the agency to reinstate
The court pointed out that the reason given for summarily terminating
April 18, 2019
April 17, 2019
Establishing a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination triggers the McDonnell Douglas Corp. protocols used to evaluate employee's claims
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
April 16, 2019
Standing to challenge the appointing authority's decision finalizing a disciplinary action taken against an employee
As the Court of Appeals explained in Colella v Bd. of Assessors, 95 NY2d 401, it fashioned a remedy for taxpayers to challenge important governmental actions, despite such parties being otherwise insufficiently interested for standing purposes, when "the failure to accord such standing would be in effect to erect an impenetrable barrier to any judicial scrutiny of legislative action." The Doctrine, opined the court, should not be applied, however, to permit challenges to the determinations of local governmental officials having no appreciable public significance beyond the immediately affected parties, by persons having only the remotest legitimate interest in the matter.
April 15, 2019
Considering the strong policy of including all public employees within the ambit of the Taylor Law, authority to designate certain employees managerial or confidential is to be read narrowly
 judges and justices of the unified court system;
 persons holding positions by appointment or employment in the organized militia of the state; and
 persons who may reasonably be designated from time to time as managerial or confidential upon application of the public employer to the appropriate body in accordance with such body's duly established procedures.
Such persons, however, remain subject to the provisions of §210 of the Taylor Law, "Prohibition of strikes" and §211 of the Taylor Law which provides for obtaining "injunctive relief" where required.
Supreme Court dismissed NYC Health's petition. NYC Health appealed but the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.
April 12, 2019
By commencing a CPLR Article 78 action involving arbitrable issues, the petitioner may be deemed to have waived his or her right to demand arbitration of those issues
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
April 11, 2019
Medical records related "solely to an employer's hiring practices" are not available to the applicant pursuant to New York's Public Health Law §18 unless necessary to make informed decisions concerning medical treatment
April 10, 2019
In February 2017 Petitioner initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding against OPWDD seeking, among other things, reinstatement to her former position, contending that her termination was made without administrative due process and "was otherwise arbitrary and capricious." Supreme Court dismissed her petition and Petitioner appealed.
The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Courts ruling, rejecting her contention that she was denied due process when OPWDD failed to follow the disciplinary procedures mandated by the Civil Service Law Section 75 and set forth in the relevant collective bargaining agreement.
*This requirement "was also set forth in a state regulation, a special advisory bulletin and a mandatory annual Medicaid compliance job training for employees, and was the subject of quarterly screenings to ensure that such employees maintained their eligibility in the Medicaid program."
April 9, 2019
NEW YORK PUBLIC PERSONNEL LAW ELECTRONIC HANDBOOKS
Click here to Read a FREE excerpt from The Discipline Book concerning the due process rights of public employees in
Click here to Read a FREE excerpt from A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances applied to public employees in
Click here to Read a FREE excerpt from The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual.
Click here to Read a FREE excerpt from Disability Benefits for fire, police and other public sector personnel.
Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these 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, REMEMBER THAT 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 DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
N.B. 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 in this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor members of the staff are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is advised to seek such advice from a competent professional.