An employee removed from his or her position by a civil service commission pursuant to Civil Service Law §50.4 is not entitled to a pre-termination hearing

An employee removed from his or her position by a civil service commission pursuant to Civil Service Law §50.4 is not entitled to a pre-termination hearing

95 AD2d 1005

Citing Mingo v Pirnie, 55 NY2d 1019, the Appellate Division ruled that "Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, her status as a permanent appointee in the competitive class of the classified civil service did not entitle her to a mandatory pretermination hearing under Civil Service Law § 75(1)(a), where the Nassau County Civil Service Commission relied upon Civil Service Law § 50(4) in revoking her payroll certification and directing the termination of her employment."

In Mingo a county civil service commission disqualified an employee following his permanent appointment and removed him from his position with the village pursuant to §50.4 of the Civil Service Law. The Commission had determined that the individual had “intentionally made false statements of material facts in his application or (had) attempted to practice (a) deception or fraud in his application”. 

The employee sued, contending that the commission could not disqualify him for employment in the position without first providing him with a pre-termination hearing.

The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, stating that §50.4 “requires no more than that the person be given a written statement of the reasons [for his or her disqualification for employment] and afforded an opportunity to make explanation and to submit facts in opposition to such disqualification. No hearing is required.”

The Commission had found that the employee had falsified his application with respect to his experience and had concealed relevant facts related to his separation from previous employment.

Governor Cuomo announces estate tax refunds available to qualified spouses of same-sex couples

Governor Cuomo announces estate tax refunds available to qualified spouses of same-sex couples

Source: Office of the Governor

On July 23, 2013, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced that Estate Tax refunds are available to qualified spouses of same-sex couples. Refunds may be available as a result of the recent United States Supreme Court decision, United States v. Windsor, in which the Court held that §3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. 

Edie Windsor, a New Yorker, sued the federal government after the Internal Revenue Service denied her refund request for the $363,000 in federal estate taxes she paid after her spouse, Thea Spyer, died in 2009. She also had filed a protective claim with the New York State Tax Department asking for a similar Estate Tax refund from New York. Generally, a claim for credit or refund of an over-payment of estate tax must be filed by a taxpayer within three years from the date the original return was filed or two years from the date the tax was paid. 

Taxpayers believing that they may affected by the Windsor ruling should contact the New York State Taxpayer Information Center at 518-457-5387.

Additional information can be found on the Tax Department’s memorandumon estates of same-sex couples.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board may apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel in denying a claimant UI benefits based on a disciplinary arbitration that led to the claimant’s dismissal

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board may apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel in denying a claimant UI benefits based on a disciplinary arbitration that led to the claimant’s dismissal

2013 NY Slip Op 05280, Appellate Division, Third Department

A claimant for unemployment insurance benefits challenged his dismissal from his position by the employer but an arbitrator concluded that there was just cause for his termination.

Subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied the claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits, ruling that he was disqualified from receiving such benefits because he was terminated for disqualifying misconduct. The claimant then appealed the Board’s ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision explaining that "as there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior [arbitration] proceeding, collateral estoppel effect must be given to the arbitrator's factual findings regarding claimant's misconduct."

As the Board had appropriately taken into account the arbitrator's factual findings and made "an independent evaluation as to whether that conduct constitutes 'misconduct' for the purposes of unemployment insurance" the Appellate Division found no basis to overturn the Board's ruling.

Although the individual contended that “at worst, the alleged conduct constituted an excusable error in judgment,” the Board disagreed.

The decision notes that the individual had been counseled by the employer prior to this incident "for various safety violations" and where the misconduct is potentially detrimental to the employer's best interest may, “as in this instance, be sufficient to constitute disqualifying misconduct.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_05280.htm

Contract provision providing for the temporary appointment of a substitute teachers held a waiver of the educator’s statutory entitlement to a permanent appointment

Contract provision providing for the temporary appointment of a substitute teachers held a waiver of the educator’s statutory entitlement to a permanent appointment

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision 10918

The relevant collective bargaining agreement provided that a temporary appointment was to be made when a substitute teacher was to be so employed for more than 40 consecutive days.

When the teacher for whom she was substituting died, the School Board, at the request of the Union to fill the position in accordance with the terms of the CBA, “temporarily appointed” the substitute teacher to the vacancy.

The substitute was subsequently notified that she was not under consideration for permanent appointment. She sued contending that she was a probationer in the vacant position “by operation of law”. 

Following a series of administrative and Court proceedings, the question was remanded to the Commissioner of Education for further consideration.

The Commissioner, in considering the merits of the teacher's appeal, held that although the Board has no authority to make other than probationary appointments to fill permanent vacancies, a teacher may waive the statutory entitlement.

The Commissioner then found that the CBA provision, with which the Board had complied at the request of the Union, provided for a “temporary appointment.” Accordingly, the Commissioner concluded that the CBA’s provision constituted such a waiver and the substitute teacher could not challenge the School Board’s appointing her as a temporary teacher rather than as a permanent appointee subject to the satisfactory completion of a probationary period under the circumstances.

Employee terminated after being found guilty of misuse of funds

Employee terminated after being found guilty of misuse of funds

OATH Index No. 494/13

The New York City Department of Educationcharged a custodial engineer with the misuse of funds. 

OATH Administrative Law Judge Kevin F. Casey found that the custodian failed to repay more than $43,000 he owed to the Department in excess funds, that he wrote a check to the Department for $43,620, knowing that there were insufficient funds in his account to cover the check, and that he overpaid himself by $14,000

The Department apportions funds to custodian engineers based on the square footage of buildings that they maintain. Funds are kept in a custodial bank account which custodian engineers can access online. Custodian engineers must repay the Department any excess funds that they receive each year. In this instance the custodian acknowledged overpaying himself and his staff.

Judge Casey recommended termination of the employee, which recommendation was adopted by the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education.

.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/13_Cases/13-494.pdf

An administrative agency’s rules and regulations must be consistent with and supplemental to the legislation relied upon by the agency for their promulgation

An administrative agency’s rules and regulations must be consistent with and supplemental to the legislation relied upon by the agency for their promulgation
Kigin v State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd., 2013 NY Slip Op 05360, Appellate Division, Third Department

In this challenge to a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, one of the arguments advanced by the claimant denied certain benefits was that the Board lacked the authority to promulgate the regulations and the “incorporated Guidelines” relied upon by the Board for its ruling, contending that they were inconsistent with the enabling legislation and the workers' compensation statutory scheme.

Addressing this argument, the Appellate Division said that “[a]lthough administrative agencies have no inherent legislative power, they have ‘all the powers expressly delegated to [them] by the Legislature and are authorized to ‘fill in the interstices in the legislati[on]’ by promulgating rules and regulations consistent with their enabling legislation.”

Further, said the court, "[I]t is not always necessary that the Legislature provide precise guidelines to an agency charged with carrying out the policies embodied in a legislative delegation of power. In certain technical areas, where flexibility is required to enable an administrative agency to adapt to changing conditions, it is sufficient if the Legislature confers broad power upon the agency to fulfill the policy goals embodied in the statute, leaving it up to the agency itself to promulgate the necessary regulatory details."

Also, said the Appellate Division, courts will uphold regulations that are consistent with and supplemental to the relevant statute “provided they have a rational basis and [are] not unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the statute under which [they were] promulgated."

The Appellate Division ruled that the Board acted within its legislatively conferred authority in this instance.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_05360.htm

Governor Cuomo announces approval of 2014 health insurance plan rates for New York Health Benefit Exchange

Governor Cuomo announces approval of 2014 health insurance plan rates for New York Health Benefit Exchange

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced that the Department of Financial Services (DFS) has approved health insurance plan rates for 17 insurers seeking to offer coverage through New York’s Health Benefits Exchange, including eight new entrants into the market that do not currently offer commercial health insurance plans.

In 2012 Governor Cuomo took action to issue an Executive Order establishing the New York Health Benefit Exchange, which is expected to help more than one million uninsured New Yorkers access quality, affordable health care coverage.

The following companies had health insurance plan rates for the health benefits exchange approved today by DFS. The rates approved are subject to final certification of the insurers’ participation in the exchange.

· Aetna

· Affinity Health Plan, Inc.

· American Progressive Life & Health Insurance Company of New York

· Capital District Physicians Health Plan, Inc.

· Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York

· Empire BlueCross BlueShield

· Excellus

· Fidelis Care

· Freelancers Co-Op

· Healthfirst New York

· HealthNow New York, Inc.

· Independent Health

· MetroPlus Health Plan

· MVP Health Plan, Inc.

· North Shore LIJ

· Oscar Health Insurance Co.

· United Healthcare

Enrollment for the exchange begins on October 1, 2013 for coverage that will be effective January 1, 2014.

Additional information about the New York Health Benefit Exchange is available on the Internet at: www.HealthBenefitExchange.ny.gov

An article, Municipalites Need to be Well Positioned in 2013 to Address the Health Care Reform Act, has been posted on the Internet by NYMuniBlog, a LawBlog published by Harris Beach PLLC, a law firm, as a public service, at http://nymuniblog.com/?p=2869

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Internet page dedicated to the Affordable Health Care Act is at: http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/law/index.html

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

Issued during the week ending July 19, 2013 [Click on text highlighted in bold to access the full report] 

A.G. Schneiderman & State Comptroller DiNapoli Announce Arrest of Not–For–Profit Executive in Five–Year Public Corruption Scheme

Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Tuesday announced the arrest of a nonprofit executive accused of pocketing tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer funds intended for public services in New York City. The joint investigation conducted by the Office of the Attorney General and the State Comptroller–s office revealed that Van R. Holmes —— the president of the Young Leaders Institute, Inc. —— stole more than $85,000 by creating dozens of false records and forged documents which he filed with State and City agencies in order to obtain public money.

DiNapoli: Binghamton Facing Fiscal Challenges, But Outlook Improving

The city of Binghamton is grappling with high rates of unemployment and poverty, but its outlook is improving as it builds up reserve funds, according to a fiscal report issued Thursday by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The report is part of a series of fiscal profiles on cities across the state.

DiNapoli: Lax Board Oversight Allowed Former Village of Old Field Treasurer to Steal Nearly $60,000

Poor oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Old Field allowed its former Treasurer Andrea Brosnan to steal nearly $60,000 in village funds without detection, according to an auditreleased Wednesday by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The findings of the audit were shared with Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas J. Spota whose office charged Brosnan with second–degree grand larceny, first–degree falsifying business records, defrauding the government and official misconduct on May 22. Criminal proceedings are pending.

DiNapoli: State Tax Receipts Down in June, but Overall State Fiscal Picture Positive

Personal Income Tax and business tax collections were down in June compared to last year, but the state’s General Fund balance ended the month higher than anticipated, in part because of a $250 million regulatory settlement, according to the June cash report released Wednesday by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

DiNapoli Finds Questionable Charges for Rochester Special Education Provider

The Norman Howard School, a Rochester–based special education provider, submitted more than $200,000 in improper charges over a three–year period, mostly for salaries that went to uncertified teachers, according to an auditreleased Tuesday by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

DiNapoli Finds Budgeting Problems at East Ramapo Central School District

Poor financial practices by the East Ramapo Central School District, including inaccurate budget estimates, have left the district with operating deficits for the past two years and could jeopardize future district operations, according to an auditreleased Friday by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

DiNapoli: State Improperly Overpaid Oneonta Dentist $66,000

The state Department of Health improperly paid an Oneonta dentist $66,402 for 2,361 inflated or questionable Medicaid claims he submitted for unwarranted services, including “behavior management,” and dentures that were not delivered to the recipients, according to an auditreleased Monday by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

DiNapoli Urges President Obama To Direct Federal Agencies To Adopt “Place Of Celebration” Standard For Recognition Of Same–Sex Marriages

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Friday released a letterto President Barack Obama calling on him, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, to direct all federal agencies under his control to adopt a marriage “Place of Celebration” standard. This would require federal agencies and programs to recognize all valid same–sex marriages, regardless of the current residence of the same–sex spouses.

Comptroller DiNapoli Releases Municipal Audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Friday announced his office completed audits of:

the Jefferson Fire District and

the Town of Lagrange.

New leaders of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and the Office of Mental Health [OMH] nominated by Governor Cuomo

New leaders of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and the Office of Mental Health [OMH] to be nominated by Governor Cuomo

On July 19, 2013 Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced the appointments of Courtney Burke as the administration’s new Deputy Secretary for Health, Laurie Kelley to serve as the Acting Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and Dr. Ann Sullivan to serve as the Acting Commissioner of the Office of Mental Health.

The Governor intends to nominate both Ms. Kelley and Dr. Sullivan to serve as Commissioners of OPWDD and OMH, respectively, during the next legislative session. Their nominations are subject to confirmation by the New York State Senate.

Services provided to an educational institution by a student at the institution is not employment for the purposes of eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits

Services provided to an educational institution by a student at the institution is not employment for the purposes of eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits

Galindo (Board of Higher Educ., City Univ. of N.Y.--Commissioner of Labor), 108 AD3d 906

"Services rendered for an educational institution by a person who is enrolled and is in regular attendance as a student in such an institution" does not constitute employment within the meaning of the Labor Law §511(15) for the purposes of an individual’s eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. Whether a claim for unemployment insurance benefits is within the ambit of this exclusion depends on the facts and circumstances of the employment to determine whether the primary purpose of the work was to earn a living or to further the claimant's education.

A claimant for unemployment insurance benefits challenged the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s determination that she was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

The claimant began working as an office assistant for the City University of New York [CCNY] and about a year later began taking classes at a community college affiliated with CUNY. The claimant continued working full time for CUNY, thereby obtaining a tuition fee waiver.

When the claimant earned her degree, her employment with CUNY “was discontinued by agreement” and she filed for unemployment insurance benefits. The claimant’s application was denied as excluded under Labor Law §511(15) and she appealed the Board’s determination.

The Appellate Division sustained the Board’s ruling, explaining that “the record contains substantial evidence supporting the factual finding of the Board that claimant was ‘in regular attendance as a student’ and, therefore, ineligible for benefits pursuant to the statute.”

Accordingly, the Appellate Division declined to “disturb” the Board’s determination.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_05269.htm

Employee’s two-day suspension without pay ruled “beyond arbitrary” under the circumstances

Employee’s two-day suspension without pay ruled “beyond arbitrary” under the circumstances

2013 NY Slip Op 51145(U), Supreme Court, New York County [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

In this Article 78 Proceeding, the Petitioner asked Supreme Court to annul and rescind the New York City Department of Education’s [DOE] determination that she had administered corporeal punishment to a student and her being suspended without pay for two days as a result of that determination. In addition, Petitioner asked the court [1] to compel DOE “to expunge their files” concerning the event leading to Petitioner’s suspension and [2] her award of back pay and other benefits lost.

The genesis of this action was Petitioner’s receiving a letter from the school principal [Principal] scheduling an appointment to investigate an allegation of corporal punishment made by a parent of one of the students in Petitioner’s class. Petitioner denied the allegations that she had administered corporal punishment to the child.

Principal then notified Petitioner that she was going to refer the allegations to the DOE's Office of Special Investigations [OSI] and Petitioner submitted a written response to Principal in which Petitioner again denied the allegations.

At the conclusion of the school year, Principal told Petitioner that DOE's OSI had not rendered a decision regarding the allegations of corporal punishment nor did the record submitted to Supreme Court contain any information about any investigation or determination by OSI. Subsequently, however, Principal informed Petitioner that she had investigated the complaint, which included interviews with the child’s mother, interviews with students in Petitioner's class who wrote “witness statements,” and the classroom teacher.

The Principal sent Petitioner a “Suspension Letter” stating that:

I have evaluated all of the investigatory results, including your response … and conclude that after completing the investigation, a specific date of occurrence could not be determined. I also could not determine whether or not you have pulled [[the child] by the his neck or shoulders, or pushed him on his back [as his mother alleged]. However based on statements made by some of the students in the class, I conclude that you have grabbed [the student] by the arm and pulled on his sleeves in the past.  

Principal then suspended Petitioner for two days without pay.

After addressing a number of procedural issued, Supreme Court Judge Manuel J. Mendez address the merits of Petitioner’s appeal, finding:

1. The Suspension Letter, the only documentation supplied to the Court recording “DOE's decision,” states that the Principal “was not able to determine the truth regarding any of the allegations made by [the pupil] and his mother.”

2. The Principal’s decision concerning the allegations of corporal punishment were based on the written statements of eight students and the record is silent as to how her discussion with the teacher “factored into her decision.”

3. Seven of the eight written statements submitted by DOE in these proceedings written by “2nd grade special education students ‘include translations' at the bottom whereby someone took it upon themselves to interpret what the unnamed individual concludes the children meant to say.”

4. Four of the seven letters “clearly and unequivocally” state Petitioner never touched the student while three statements mention physical contact between Petitioner and the student, two which state that Petitioner grabbed the student’s arm and the third stated that Petitioner grabbed the student’s clothes. The court noted that there was no description, context, or explanation accompanied these statements.

The court’s conclusion:  “those three written statements were enough for [the principal] to substantiate allegations of corporal punishment against Petitioner and reflect such in Petitioner's permanent record with the DOE.”

Judge Mendez opined that for the Principal to substantiate allegations of corporal punishment against Petitioner based solely on what “those three children wrote at someone else's prompting,” after she was unable to determine any truth to the original allegations, “is beyond arbitrary.”

Judge Mendez annulled the letter substantiating allegations of corporal punishment against Petitioner and ordered DOE to expunge all reference to the “Suspension Letter” determination, and anything else referring to it, from its files, “including, but not limited to, any reference to a substantiated allegation of corporal punishment and the two day suspension.” The court then directed DOE pay Petitioner two-days back pay and other benefits lost as a result of Petitioner's two-day suspension. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_51145.htm

Workers’ compensation claim for the employee’s attorney fees awarded after carrier made full reimbursement for wages paid an employee injured on the job

Workers’ compensation claim for the employee’s attorney fees awarded after carrier made full reimbursement for wages paid an employee injured on the job

Casale v City of Rye, 2013 NY Slip Op 05268, Appellate Division, Third Department

A police officer submitted a claim for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a fractured wrist on the job. The employer did not controvert the claim and paid the officer full wages during the period of his disability. The employer than sought reimbursement from its workers' compensation carrier for the wages it had paid the police officer.

The Workers' Compensation Board, without holding hearings, issued a proposed decision that established the claim and directed the workers' compensation carrier to reimburse the employer for the period of during which it had paid the police officer.

The carrier made full reimbursement to the employer as directed but on the same date that such payment was made the police officer’s attorney faxed a request for fees with the Board. As a result, the Board rescinded its decision and issued a new proposed decision awarding the police officer’s counsel a $750 fee and directed that it be paid by the carrier as a lien on the current award.

The carrier objected, contending that the award had already been paid.

The Board rescinded, again, “all prior decisions and scheduled a hearing.” Ultimately the Board granted police officer's counsel a $750 fee as a lien on any future awards made and the carrier appealed, contending that “the counsel fee award should have been made immediately payable by the carrier as an overpayment.”

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, explaining that “counsel fees in conjunction with a workers' compensation claim may be attached as a lien to ‘'any compensation awarded,’ and the fact that a balance is not currently owing to a claimant does not preclude an award of fees made payable as a lien against future awards.”

Noting that there was nothing in the record establishing that the carrier received notice of the counsel fee request before it made full reimbursement to the employer, the Appellate Division declined to disturb the Board’s decision to award such fees as a lien against future awards.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_05268.htm