The law in effect at the time the administrative or court decision is made controls

The law in effect at the time the administrative or court decision is made controls

Trifaro v Town of Colonie, 31 AD3d 821

Pointing out that it is well established that, generally, the law is to be applied as it exists at the time a decision is rendered, even if the law has been altered since the commencement of the action or proceeding, the Appellate Division, citing citing Gager v White, 53 NY2d 475, 483 [1981], cert denied 454 US 1086, said that this rule applies to administrative and judicial proceedings alike.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division vacated a hearing officer’s determination that was based on the law at the time a hearing was requested rather than the law as it existed at the time the decision was made, notwithstanding the fact that the processing of the hearing was delayed by the individual requesting the hearing. 
.

School district must offer its Medicare-eligible retirees the same health insurance benefits the district offers to its active employees

School district must offer its Medicare-eligible retirees the same health insurance benefits the district offers to its active employees

Anderson v Niagara Falls City Sch. Dist., 2013 NY Slip Op 23274, Supreme Court, Niagara County, State Supreme Court Justice Ralph A. Boniello, III

Medicare-eligible retirees of the Niagara Falls City School District [Plaintiffs] sued the school district alleging that the School District had diminished their health insurance benefits by placing them in the "Blue Cross/Blue Shield Forever Blue Medicare PPO 799 Plan" (Forever Blue Plan) without making a similar change in the health insurance plan in which the school district's active employees participated.

This, contended Plaintiffs, constituted a unilateral diminution of their benefits – i.e., additional or higher co-payment costs and medication costs -- as the result of the School District requiring that its Medicare-eligible retirees switch from the “Traditional Blue Plan” to the “Forever Blue Plan.”* In contrast, there was no corresponding diminution in the health insurance benefits provided the active employees. Indeed, said the court, it is undisputed that at the same time Plaintiffs were placed in Forever Blue, the active employees employed by the School District were placed in the NY-44 Health Benefits Trust Plan and as a result the active employees were provided with an increase or improvement of their overall health insurance benefits.

Plaintiffs alleged that this change violated the School District’s obligations under Chapter 504, Part B, §14 of the Laws of 2009 [The Moratorium provision]:

§14 addressed health insurance benefits available to retired employees of school districts and certain boards and, in pertinent part, provides that “a school district … shall be prohibited from diminishing the health insurance benefits provided to retirees and their dependents or the contributions such … district makes for such health insurance coverage … unless a corresponding diminution of benefits or contributions is effected from the present level during this period by such district or board [for] the corresponding group of active employees ….”

Among the differences noted by Justice Boniello: the Traditional Blue Plan did not require co-payments for nearly all medical services that took place in-network while the Forever Blue Plan requires co-payments for medical services that occur, both in and out-of-network, and required significantly higher co-payments for prescription medications.

While the School District claimed that it had “offset the additional out of pocket expenses” incurred by the Plaintiffs resulting from their enrollment in Forever Blue by creating a medical reimbursement account for each Medicare-eligible [retiree]," this account was capped at $600.00. Justice Boniello found that “while in some cases the $600.00 may be sufficient, it is entirely possible, and indeed probable, that in most cases it will not be enough.”

Justice Boniello concluded that the School District’s actions violated the mandates set out in Chapter 504, Part B, §14 of the Laws of 2009 and that the School District’s actions were arbitrary, capricious and unlawful.

Justice Boniello then directed the School District[1] to pay each of the Petitioners the amounts, together with interest, "that each has incurred and/or will incur" by reason of the School District’s action to the date of its compliance with the Moratorium provision; and further ordered the school district [2] “to cover the costs and/or provide health insurance coverage that will place the Petitioners in the same position that they would have been in but for the actions of the [School District].”

* A number of school districts, rather then unilaterally imposing such a change upon its Medicare-eligible retirees, have offered its Medicare-eligible retirees the option of either [1] remaining in the district's health insurance plan available to its active employees or [2] electing to switch to different health insurance plan.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_23274.htm
.

The Moreland Commission recently established by Governor Cuomo to investigate corruption in the public service issues its first subpoenas

The Moreland Commission recently established by Governor Cuomo to investigate corruption in the public service issues its first subpoenas

The editorial team of the NYMUNIBLOG, published by the Harris Beach law firm as a public service, has posted a new item, "Moreland Commission Issues First Subpoenas." The post reports that the Moreland Commission recently appointed by Governor Cuomo to investigate corruption in the public service has issued its “first wave of subpoenas” and that more subpoenas are expected to be issued in the near future. The Commission has scheduled initial public hearings to be held in September. 

The Moreland Act, now §6 of Executive Law, was passed by the New York State Legislature and signed into law in 1907. The Act authorizes the governor, in person or through one or more persons appointed by the governor, to examine the management and affairs of any department, board, bureau or commission of the State. Commission investigators have the power to interview witnesses, administer oaths, hold hearings, and seize any material deemed relevant to the Commission's investigation.

The Commission is expected to releasing an interim report by the end of 2013 and its final report in mid-2014. 

Additional information on the scope of investigations undertaken by a Moreland Commission is posted on the Harris Beach Legal Alert website at  “Insights into the history and intricacies of a Moreland Commission investigation.”
.

Reports and audits issued by the New York State Comptroller

Reports and audits issued by the New York State Comptroller during the week ending August 19, 2013. [Click on text highlighted in bold to access the full report.] 

State Recovers $46 Million in Medicaid Payments Following DiNapoli Audit

New York state was able to recover $46 million in overpayments to nursing homes after an audit by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli found the Department of Health’s computer system failed to deduct payments some nursing home residents are required to pay for their care, according to a follow–up reportissued August 17, 2013 by DiNapoli. The new report, however, notes that deficiencies in the computer system still exist.

Contractor Charged in Federal Court for Defrauding NYS Health Department of Over $700,000

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara Wednesday announced chargesagainst JOSEPH L. JUNKOVIC for allegedly engaging in a scheme to defraud the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) out of more than $700,000 dedicated to providing cancer screening services to low–income New Yorkers. JUNKOVIC allegedly used a not–for–profit corporation that he controlled, Cancer Service Network, Inc. to obtain more than $25 million in federal and state funding to administer cancer screening services, and then billed the NYSDOH for thousands of hours that he did not in fact work. He was arrested at his Bronx home Wednesday morning and presented in Manhattan federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis.

DiNapoli: State Fiscal Picture Stable

Tax collections were $18 million below updated projections during July, but receipts since the start of the fiscal year were 13.3 percent higher than last year because of strong personal income tax (PIT) receipts in April, according to the July cash report released Friday by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. July tax collections were 5.2 percent higher than last year, largely from an additional collection day for PIT withholding this month.

DiNapoli: New Medicaid Reimbursement Method Leads to $31 Million in Overpayments

The state Department of Health made as much as $31 million in excessive Medicaid payments for patients who died within 24 hours of being admitted to a hospital after a new method of calculating hospital payments went into effect, according to an auditreleased August 16, 2013 by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

DiNapoli: Long Island Pharmacy Swindled State Out Of $235,000

A Long Island pharmacy improperly collected at least $235,000 from Medicaid and the New York State Health Insurance Program over a four–year period, primarily through payments for phony prescriptions that were never delivered to patients, according to audits released Tuesday by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

Audit Finds New York City Property Owners Underreported $20 Million in Billboard Income

Hundreds of New York City property owners failed to report an estimated $20 million of taxable income from billboards according to an auditreleased Thursday by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli which was coordinated with New York City Comptroller John C. Liu. Auditors found the New York City Department of Finance failed to follow up on whether property owners were reporting income and did not impose penalties for late or inaccurate information.

NYS Common Retirement Fund Announces First Quarter Results

The New York State Common Retirement Fund’s (Fund) overall rate of return for the first quarter ending June 30, 2013, was 0.29 percent, according to New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The Fund’s estimated value at the end of the first quarter of its fiscal year was $158.7 billion.

Comptroller DiNapoli Releases Municipal Audits

the Town of Alexandria;

the Village of Bolivar;

the Town of Coldspring;

the City of Glens Falls;

the Grahamsville Fire District;

the Town of Kendall;

the Mastics–Moriches–Shirley Community Library;

the Roosevelt Fire District;

the Schuyler County Sheriff’s Department;

and, the Steuben County Soil and Water Conservation District.

.

Audit reports released by State Comptroller DiNapoli on August 16, 2013

Audit reports released by State Comptroller DiNapoli on August 16, 2013

On August 16, 2013, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the following audits were issued. . [Click on text highlighted in bold to access the full report.] 

Department of Agriculture and Markets, Uncollected Penalties (2012-S-69)
Auditors found outstanding accounts routinely have no collection activity for two years or more and are often eventually deemed uncollectible. Between April 2007 and October 2012, more than 6,000 penalized establishments went out of business resulting in the withdrawal and write off of more than $3.5 million of accounts receivable. Critical but incompatible duties associated with collection are all assigned to one employee. An absence of management oversight has increased the risk that errors, omissions and even irregularities can occur and not be detected.

Department of Motor Vehicles, Oversight and Collection of Snowmobile Registration Fees (2011-S-54)
DMV practices have allowed snowmobile registration discounts to registrants who are ineligible for them, resulting in less revenue to the trail fund for trail services. As a result, 31 of the 50 discounted registrations (62 percent) auditors sampled were for registrants for whom neither DMV nor the New York State Snowmobile Association could confirm eligibility. Given the weaknesses identified, auditors estimate lost revenues to the trail fund may be significant.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Selected Aspects of Bus Fleet Maintenance Report (2013-F-8)
An initial audit report in 2010 examined whether the MTA has standards and procedures for the maintenance of its bus fleet, performs bus maintenance in compliance with these standards and procedures, and has a comprehensive maintenance plan for its bus fleet. Auditors found that a number of improvements were needed. In a follow-up report, auditors found the MTA made significant progress in correcting the problems identified.

The MTA has implemented four recommendations and partially implemented three recommendations.

Also, as part of a statewide initiative to determine whether the use of travel money by selected government employees was appropriate, auditors looked at travel expenses for the highest-cost travelers in the state for the following state entities:

State University of New York System Administration Office, Selected Employee Travel Expenses (2012-S-100)
Auditors selected to audit one State University of New York System Administration Office employee whose expenses ranked among the highest in the state in the area of lodging. In total, they examined $188,074 in travel costs associated with this employee. Most of the expenses examined were appropriate. However, the employee selected for audit had charges totaling $5,021 that were either for non-reimbursable expenses ($200 hotel room smoking charge) or lacked adequate assurance that the charges were for the most reasonable and economical method of travel ($4,821 in car service charges).

State University of New York College at Buffalo, Selected Employee Travel Expenses (2012-S-136)
Auditors were only able to examine two years and nine months of the three years of travel expenditures totaling $127,095 because the college was not required to and did not maintain records prior to July 1, 2008. The travel expenses for the one employee selected for audit were documented and adhered to state travel rules and regulations. This employee was an athletic coach who was responsible for team travel expenses. This coach also incurred expenses for recruiting trips.

State University of New York at Stony Brook, Selected Employee Travel Expenses (2012-S-102)
Auditors examined the travel costs of eight university employees whose expenses exceeded $100,000 or had outliers in the area of train fare. In total, auditors examined $1,313,845 in travel costs associated with these eight employees. Most of the expenses auditors examined were appropriate. However, two employees had charges totaling $2,529 that were either not for legitimate business purposes or lacked adequate assurance the charge was solely for legitimate business purposes.
.

Hearsay evidence coupled with nonhearsay evidence held to constitute substantial evidence sufficient to support the appointing authority’s disciplinary decision

Hearsay evidence coupled with nonhearsay evidence held to constitute substantial evidence sufficient to support the appointing authority’s disciplinary decision

2013 NY Slip Op 05630, Appellate Division, Second Department

The appointing authority terminated the employee [Petitioner] following a Civil Service Law §75 disciplinary hearing. Petitioner was found guilty of “misconduct and/or incompetence” and was terminated from her position. Petitioner appealed.

The Appellate confirmed the appointing authority’s determination, explaining that the review of administrative determinations in employee disciplinary cases made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 is limited to a consideration of whether the appointing authority's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Although much of the evidence against Petitioner offered by the employer was hearsay, the Appellate Division said that this hearsay evidence, in conjunction with the nonhearsay evidence presented at the hearing, constituted substantial evidence sufficient to support the determination that Petitioner was guilty of the charges brought against her.

As to the penalty imposed, termination, the court said that the penalty was “not so disproportionate to the offense committed as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness,” citing Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_05630.htm
.

Court holds that termination of an employee after 19 years of employment because of an isolated incident of misconduct shocking to one's sense of fairness”

Court holds that termination of an employee after 19 years of employment because of an isolated incident of misconduct shocking to one's sense of fairness”

2013 NY Slip Op 51322(U), Supreme Court, Dutchess County, Justice James D. Pagones [Not selected for publications in the Official Reports.].

An employee [Petitioner] was served with a number disciplinary charges pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, found guilty of such charges and dismissed from his position.

In a previous proceeding, the Appellate Division found "that substantial evidence in the record supports the determination of [the appointing authority] that Petitioner was guilty of charges one, two, and three…” Accordingly, Justice Pagones said that in the action before him there was no issue of fact as to Petitioner’s guilt as to charges one, two and three. However, said Justice Pagones, “[t]his Court must now look specifically to the offense(s) and determine whether or not the penalty, termination, shocks the judicial conscience."

The court concluded that although the facts and the charges as sustained by the Appellate Division, “while serious, do not fit the penalty of termination.”

In brief, Petitioner was observed “consuming a beer and a shot of liquor” from approximately 1:40 p.m. until 2:40 p.m during his workday, at which point Petitioner returned to work. "This one hour time frame," said the court, "has now cost [Petitioner] his job and his benefits associated with the position."

Recognizing that Petitioner committed a serious infraction, Justice Pagones ruled that “the penalty of termination of his employment is so disproportionate to the offense committed as be shocking to one's sense of fairness” considering that there was no evidence in the record before the Court that Petitioner “during his nineteen (19) years of employment with [employer] had presented a disciplinary problem or that the incident was anything but isolated.”

Justice Pagones then remitted the matter to the appointing authority for the imposition of a lesser penalty and “held in abeyance pending submissions by [Petitioner] and [appointing authority] of a computation of the value of [Petitioner's] full back pay and benefits less any compensation derived from other employment or any unemployment benefits received from September 9, 2010 until now.”

N.B. With respect to the amount of the back pay to be awarded in the event a discharged employee is reinstated by action of a civil service commission or personnel officer or a court, prior to its amendment in 1985 Civil Service Law §§76 and 77 provided that the amount of back pay due an individual found to have been unlawfully terminated from his or her position was to be reduced by the amount of compensation he or she may have earned in any other employment or occupation following his or her termination, together with any unemployment insurance benefits he or she may have received during that period.

In 1985 §§76 and 77 of the Civil Service Law, which apply to certain employees in the classified service of a public employer, were amended [Chapter 851, Laws of 1985] and currently provide that an employee reinstated pursuant to either of these subdivisions is to receive the salary to which he or she would have otherwise been entitled, less the amount of any unemployment insurance benefit that he or she may have received during such period. The clause providing for a "reduction" in the amount to be paid for any compensation earned in other employment or occupation following his or her termination was eliminated.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_51322.htm

.

Reminder from the Internal Revenue Service to register for its “Rehired Annuitants” online presentation for government employers

Reminder from the Internal Revenue Service to register for its “Rehired Annuitants” online presentation for government employers 

Date and time of the presentation: 
August 15, 2013 at 2 p.m. Eastern Time

The Internal Revenue Service [IRS] advises that payroll tax treatment of a former government employee that returns to work for the same entity may be different than it was prior to their retirement or separation. This presentation will help government employers understand how to comply with the complicated and often misunderstood tax implications of hiring a former employee.

For more information and to register, please read this article and then click on to sign up for this free online presentation.

If you have any questions for the IRS about this presentation, click on send us an e-mail.
.

Unsatisfactory performance rating vacated because of the lack of documentation in the employee’s personnel record

Unsatisfactory performance rating vacated because of the lack of documentation in the employee’s personnel record

2013 NY Slip Op 05598, Appellate Division, First Department

The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court's ruling that dismissed a petition challenging a teacher’s annual unsatisfactory performance rating and annulled the unsatisfactory rating given the educator.

The court said that the New York City Department of Education’s [DOE] determination to sustain the unsatisfactory performance evaluation was not rationally based on administrative findings that the teacher had engaged in corporal punishment as “there was no longer any documentation substantiating an instance of corporal punishment in [the teacher’s] personnel file after the parties stipulated to the removal of two disciplinary letters from the file.”

DOE’s "Rating Pedagogical Staff Members" procedure, in pertinent part, provides:

1. That a teacher's evaluation must be supported by documentation in his/her personnel file;

2. That documentation removed from a file through grievance procedures is inadmissible in performance reviews; and

3. That documentation not addressed directly to a teacher is inadmissible in performance reviews, unless it is attached to and part of another document appropriately placed in the teacher's file.

Further, said the court, materials placed in a teacher's personnel file must include a signature and date line for the teacher, evidencing that he or she has read the material and understands that it will be placed in the file, as well as a signature and date line for a witness; unsigned documents are inadmissible in evaluation reviews.

Citing Appeal of Naomi Dowrie [46 Ed Dept Rep 273, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 15,506, in which the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Education upheld the petitioner's appeal from an unsatisfactory rating on the ground that the respondent had failed to follow its own procedures and had considered material that had been removed from the petitioner's personnel file through the grievance process, i.e., "materials not properly placed in [the] teacher's personal [sic] file," the Appellate Division concluded that there was no documentation in the record to support the unsatisfactory rating give the teacher in this instance.

The court also noted Mangone v Klein, a decision by a State Supreme Court justice in which the court, relying of Dowrie, denied DOE's motion to dismiss the educator’s petition seeking to set aside his unsatisfactory rating upon finding that there was nothing in the teacher's personnel file other than a disciplinary letter that had been ordered to be removed following arbitration related to the allegations against him. [Mangone was not selected for publication in the Official Reports but the decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2007/2007_32475.pdf].

The DOE decision is posted on the Internet at:  http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_05598.htm
.

Designating a Civil Service Law §75 disciplinary hearing officer and making a final disciplinary determination

Designating a Civil Service Law §75 disciplinary hearing officer and making a final disciplinary determination

6 Misc3d 1012(a), Affirmed 48 AD3d 815*

Civil Service Law §75 provides that the appointing authority may designate an individual to conduct a §75 disciplinary hearing and to make findings of fact and recommend the penalty to be imposed. The appointing authority is to then review such findings and recommendation and make the final determination. Where the appointing authority believes it cannot be impartial or is biased against the accused employee, the appointing authority is to delegate the decision-making authority to some other individual authorized to act in his absence. If no such person is available, then the Rule of Necessity would apply and the appointing authority would have to review the record and make the final determination, notwithstanding being “admittedly biased” or unable to act “impartially.”

Following her termination from her position, the individual [Petitioner] brought an Article 78 action seeking an order declaring that action “illegal, ultra vires, null and void.” State Supreme Court Justice Dickerson granted her petition.

Justice Dickerson’s decision indicates that on May 16, 2002, the Mayor preferred disciplinary charges against Petitioner pursuant to the Civil Service Law Section 75. The charges alleged insubordination and/or misconduct and neglect of duty and/or incompetence to perform the duties of her position.

The Mayor appointed an individual to serve as the Hearing Officer to determine the disciplinary charges. Stein sent his findings and recommendations to the Mayor on January 2, 2004. The Mayor then delegated to an independent arbitrator the full power and authority to make the disciplinary determination after considering Hearing Officer's report and recommendations.

The court ruled that the Mayor's designating an individual to serve as the hearing officer and his delegation of his decision making authority with respect to the charges filed against Petitioner to an independent arbitrator, including authority to make a final determination of those charges and subsequent termination of Petitioner's employment, were illegal, ultra vires, null and void. Justice Dickerson vacated the termination of Petitioner without prejudice to the City to appoint a new Hearing Officer for the purpose of conducting a new disciplinary hearing. He then awarded Petitioner back pay from the date of her termination together with any benefits to which she was entitled.

The decision states that the Mayor was admittedly biased, and, indeed, wanted Petitioner dismissed from her position. However, that bias, said the court, does not necessarily excuse him from the duty of making the final determination in this matter. The delegation must be to a duly qualified individual authorized to act during the absence or inability of the appointing authority not previously involved in the proceedings or charges. Only when there is no such official and one cannot be appointed, and thus no such delegation is possible, does the “Rule of Necessity” apply, permitting an otherwise partial official to make the final determination.”

The court said that an independent arbitrator with no connection "with the governmental employment at issue," was not “a duly qualified individual authorized to act during the absence or inability of the appointing authority. As the Mayor believed he was biased and not impartial, it was the Mayor's responsibility to try to delegate the decision-making authority to either the City's personnel officer, the City Clerk, or to some other individual authorized to act in his absence. If no such person was available, then the Rule of Necessity would apply and the Mayor would have had to make the final determination himself, notwithstanding being “admittedly biased.”

The court then considered Civil Service Law Section 75(2), which states, in pertinent part, "...The hearing upon such charges shall be held by the officer or body having the power to remove the person against whom such charges are preferred or by a deputy or other person designated by such officer or body in writing for that purpose."

But, said Justice Dickerson, the Mayor was neither "the officer or body having the power to remove" nor was he "a deputy or other person designated by such officer or body in writing for that purpose". Under the controlling provision in the City Code, the authority to remove, which is a function of the power to appoint, was not specifically designated to anyone by the officials having that authority.

As to the hearing officer conducting the disciplinary hearing, the court said, “It is readily apparent that there was no written delegation by the appropriate authority to hear Petitioner's disciplinary case”. Jurisdiction was thus lacking and the hearing Officer had no authority to either conduct the disciplinary hearing or to make a report and recommendation regarding his “findings”. 

* The Supreme Court’s decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_50033.htm .  

The Appellate Division’s decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_01762.htm

.