New York Public Personnel Law: The New York's Supreme Courts and the New York's Court of Claims both have jurisdiction to consider claims alleging violation Civil Service Law §75-b or Labor Law §740

February 13, 2025

The New York's Supreme Courts and the New York's Court of Claims both have jurisdiction to consider claims alleging violation Civil Service Law §75-b or Labor Law §740

Following her resignation from Hutchings Psychiatric Center [HPC] Plaintiff commenced a whistleblower action in Supreme Court against the New York State Office of Mental Health and HPC [Defendants] pursuant to Civil Service Law §75-b and Labor Law §§740 and 741.

Defendants, contending that Supreme Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the causes of action set forth in Plaintiff's complaint on the ground that only the Court of Claims has that jurisdiction, moved to dismiss the complaint.

Supreme Court denied Defendants' motion, concluding that it did have subject matter jurisdiction over the causes of action in Plaintiff's complaint. Defendants appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

Considering Defendants' appeal, the Appellate Division noted that in 2010, the New York State Legislature amended the Court of Claims Act to provide that the Court of Claims "shall have jurisdiction ... [t]o hear and determine a claim of any person against the state for a retaliatory personnel action by its officers or employees pursuant to [Civil Service Law §75-b] or [Labor Law §740]".*

Based on the relevant legislative history, "including the concern raised to the legislature that the proposed language would encourage forum shopping," the legislature, in providing the Court of Claims with jurisdiction, did not strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to hear such cases. Thus, said the Appellate Division, Supreme Court "properly determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the causes of action asserted in the complaint" by Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division "unanimously modified" Supreme Court's ruling "on the law" by granting Defendants motion in part and dismissing the Plaintiff's claims advance pursuant to Labor Law §740 and, as modified, the order was affirmed without costs.**

* Court of Claims Act §9[13]

** Defendants alternatively contend on appeal that Plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law §740 should be dismissed because §740 apply only to private sector employers. Plaintiff did not oppose the dismissal of her cause of action brought under color of Labor Law §740 and the Appellate Division so modified the Supreme Court's order.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

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.