A reminder from the Internal Revenue Service

A reminder from the Internal Revenue Service

Free Webinars

1. Taxability of Fringe Benefits Part Two: Commonly Provided Fringe Benefits 

When: June 11, 2015; 2 p.m. (Eastern) [ [Did you miss Part One? See #3 below.]

How: Register for this event. You will use the same link to attend the event.

Learn about:

Cell phone usage

Payments In-Lieu of Insurance

Moving expense reimbursements

Meal allowances and reimbursements

Employee vehicles used for employer’s business

Employer provided vehicles

What else: Don't forget to register for these IRS Webinars:

2. Compliance Self-Assessment Tool for Government Entities

May 14, 2015; 2 p.m. (Eastern)

Register

3. Taxability of Fringe Benefits Part One: What Is A Fringe Benefit and When Is It Taxable?  

May 19, 2015; 2 p.m. (Eastern)

Register  

Employers must provide a disabled individual with a reasonable accommodation of his or her disability in contrast to providing the accommodation preferred by the individual

Employers must provide a disabled individual with a reasonable accommodation of his or her disability in contrast to providing the accommodation preferred by the individual
2015 NY Slip Op 03936, Appellate Division, First Department

The Appellate Division agreed with Supreme Court’s finding that the City of New York as the employer [Employer] had demonstrated that it had engaged in a good faith interactive process through which it had provided Complainant with a reasonable accommodation to address her vision and reading disabilities.

However, said the court, neither the New York State’s Human Rights Law [Executive Law § 296] nor New York City’s Administrative Code [Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107] requires that an employer provide a disabled individual with the specific accommodation he or she preferred, citing Pimentel v Citibank, 29 AD3d 141, leave to appeal denied, 7 NY3d 707.

Further, said the Appellate Division, Employer had established that the Complainant’s preferred additional accommodation would not have addressed the non-visual disabilities that were impacting her job performance and preventing her from satisfying the essential requisites of her job.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03936.htm

A requests for reconsideration of a final administrative decision does not toll the running of the Statute of Limitations

A request for reconsideration of a final administrative decision does not toll the running of the Statute of Limitations

2015 NY Slip Op 03929, Appellate Division, First Department

In 2006 the New York City Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) calculated a teacher’s [Retiree] total service credit and found her to be ineligible for an early retirement incentive (ERI) program.

In 2013 Retiree, after making multiple unsuccessful efforts to get TRS to rectify its allegedly erroneous determination, filed an Article 78 petition seeking a court order directing TRS to “correct” its decision regarding Retiree’s eligibility for the ERI.

Supreme Court dismissed Retiree’s petition  challenging TRS's calculation of her total service credit and its determination finding her ineligible for the ERI program as time barred. The Appellate Division agreed with Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Appellate Division said that TRS's determination became final and binding for statute of limitations purposes upon Retiree’s receipt of TRS's letter dated September 15, 2006 calculating her total service credit and explaining that she was ineligible to participate in the ERI program. Retiree did not dispute her having received this letter within five days after it was mailed on September 15, 2006. Further, said the court, there is no evidence in the record to substantiate Retiree’s claims that TRS misled her or undermined the “finality of the letter.”

The Appellate Division explained that Retiree’s many efforts to get TRS to rectify its purported error were, in effect, “requests for reconsideration, which do not serve to toll the statute of limitations,” citing Cauldwest Realty Corp. v City of New York, 160 AD2d 489. Thus, said the court, because Retiree commenced her Article 78 proceeding in 2013, well beyond the four-month statute of limitations, her challenge was time-barred.

Addressing another claim advanced by Retiree, credit for “uncompensated annual leave and cumulative absent reserve time” allegedly withheld by the Department of Education of the City of New York (DOE), the Appellate Division said Retiree’s claim was barred by the doctrine of laches  as she had waited more than 10 years after she retired from her employment with DOE to demand such relief, and Retiree provided no excuse for the delay. Laches is typically defined as "an unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in bringing the claim."

Further, said the court, under these circumstances, DOE was not required to show that it was prejudiced by Retiree's delay in bringing her claim.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03929.htm

Public pension reform effort by the Illinois State Legislature ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Illinois

Public pension reform effort by the Illinois State Legislature ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Illinois

In re Pension Reform Litigation, [Doris Heaton, et al,] v Pat Quinn, Governor, State of Illinois, et al, Supreme Court of Illinois, 2015 IL Docket 118585,

In this action the plaintiff contended the Act amending Illinois Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq.) by reducing retirement annuity benefits for individuals who first became members of four of Illinois’ five State-funded pension systems prior to January 1, 2011 was unconstitutional. Members of the retirement systems affected by Public Act 98-599 and groups representing those members brought five separate actions challenging the validity of the new law on the grounds that it violated numerous provisions of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, including Article XIII, section 5 (Ill. Const. 1970, Art. XIII, § 5), popularly known as the Pension Protection Clause.

The Circuit Court declared Public Act 98-599 to be unconstitutional in its entirety as a violation of the so-called Pension Protection Clause, and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The court rejected Illinois’ claim that “the Act could be upheld, notwithstanding its violation of the Pension Protection Clause, based on the State’s reserved sovereign powers"

As the Circuit Court’s ruling invalidated a statute of the State of Illinois, Illinois could appeal directly to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Illinois has five State-funded Retirement Systems [Systems] for public employees, which Systems provide traditional defined benefit plans under which members earn specific benefits based on their years of service, income and age. All five Systems are subject to the pension protection clause set out in Illinois’ State Constitution, which provides that “Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired” [Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5].

Concern over ongoing funding deficiencies and the attendant threat to the security of retirees in public pension systems eventually led directly to adoption of Article XIII, section 5, the Pension Protection Clause, when the new Constitution was adopted in 1970 inresponse to “the poor job governmental entities had done in meeting their pension obligations over time” whereby during the past twenty-two “the unfunded accrued liabilities of these pension plans in Illinois have increased from about $359,000,000 to almost $2,500,000,000, and the unfunded accrued liabilities are real and are not theoretical obligations based upon service already rendered.”

The advocates for adopting Article XIII, [see Record of Proceedings, Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention 2925 (statements of Delegate Green)] argued that “Our language is that language that is in the New York Constitution which was adopted in 1938, really under a similar circumstance. In 1938 you were about at the end of the Depression, but there was a great consideration on the part of the New York General Assembly to really cut out some of the money that they were giving to the pension programs in New York; and it was for this reason that the New York Constitution adopted the language that we are suggesting. Since that time, the state of New York the pension funds for public employees have been fully funded, and so I think we have good reason to believe that this type of language will be a mandate to the General Assembly to do something which they have not previously done in some twenty-two years.”

After a scholarly analysis of the issues relevant to this case, the Supreme Court sustained the Circuit Court’s conclusion that Public Act 98-599 was void and unenforceable in its entirety, thereby holding that the Act was unconstitutional and sustained the Circuit Court’s “permanently enjoining its enforcement.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2015/118585.pdf

New York State’s Human Rights Law protects unpaid interns in the public and private sectors from unlawful discrimination

New York State’s Human Rights Law protects unpaid interns in the public and private sectors from unlawful discrimination

Source: NYS Division of Human Rights

New York State Division of Human Rights Commissioner Helen Diane Foster has issued a press release reminding public and private sector employers in New York State that interns are protected from discrimination in the workplace under the New York State Human Rights Law. Foster indicated that “Unpaid interns are protected from harassment and other unlawful discrimination based on age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics, marital status, or domestic violence victim status. “
 
Commissioner Foster said that “The Human Rights Law defines “intern” as a person who performs work for an employer for the purpose of training under certain circumstances. Among them, that the employer is not committed to hire the person performing the work at the conclusion of the internship and that the person performing the work agrees with the employer that they are not entitled to wages for the work performed.  The work performed by the intern is to provide or supplement training that may enhance the intern’s "employability," provide experience for the intern’s benefit, be performed under close supervision of existing staff and not displace regular employees. If an individual is called an ‘intern’ but paid, that person will likely be considered a regular employee under the Human Rights Law.”
 
These provisions explicitly protect interns from sexual harassment, which under the Human Rights Law is considered a form of sex discrimination, as well as other forms of harassment
 
For their part, employers cannot discriminate against interns in selection, retention or terms, conditions and privileges of the internship or when advertising for the internship. It is also unlawful for employers to discriminate against pregnant interns or retaliate against an intern for opposing discriminatory behavior or for filing a complaint.
 
The Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and other jurisdictions, based on age, race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, military status, and other specified classes.

Complaints with the Division must be filed within one year of the most recent incident of discrimination. For more information about the law and the work of the agency, please visit the Division of Human Rights’ website at www.dhr.ny.gov.

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending May 9, 2015

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending May 9, 2015

Click on text highlighted in color to access the full report

Delaware Co. – Vehicle Usage and Disposal

County officials did not perform cost-benefit analyses to support the after-hours locations of vehicles. None of the six departments reviewed adequately monitored vehicle usage.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/counties/2015/delawareco.pdf

Fulton County IDA-PILOT Agreements
Seven of the eight payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreements that were active during the audit period did not have a recapture clause to recover benefits from the businesses if they did not meet their projected goals.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/ida/2015/fultonco.pdf

Village of Medina – Ambulance Service Billings
The village board did not adequately monitor ambulance billings and amounts collected. Additionally, the village did not send invoices to the three towns for unpaid ambulance bills and administrative billing fees. As a result, the village is owed more than $1 million for ambulance services.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/villages/2015/medina.pdf

Village of Nissequogue – Information Technology operations
Village officials have not designated an IT administrator who is independent of the financial recordkeeping. In addition, the board has not developed written policies and procedures, including those for acceptable computer use, password security, data backups and disaster recovery.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/villages/2015/nissequogue.pdf

City of Poughkeepsie – Audit Follow-up
Of the seven previous audit recommendations, three recommendations were fully implemented and three recommendations were partially implemented. One recommendation was not implemented. For example, the city has taken steps to reduce the deficit in the general fund and developed a comprehensive plan to reduce outstanding debt.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/cities/2015/poughkeepsiefollowup.pdf

Sir William Johnson VFC - Controls over financial activities
Neither the former nor the acting treasurer maintained accurate, complete and up-to-date accounting records. Additionally, neither treasurer consistently performed monthly bank reconciliations or provided the board with monthly and annual financial reports.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/firedists/2015/sirwilliamjohnson.pdf

Former Member of the State Assembly pleas guilty of State and Federal charges
State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, United States Attorney Richard S. Hartunian, New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, and Andrew W. Vale, Special Agent in Charge of the Albany Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, announced that former Member of the State Assembly William Scarborough, age 69, of Queens, New York, has agreed to enter guilty pleas on federal and state public charges stemming from public corruption investigations.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/may15/050715.htm?utm_source=weeklynews20150510&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=050715release

College Savings Sweepstakes announced
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced a $500 sweepstakes to help a lucky New Yorker plan ahead for college. Winnings from the sweepstakes will be put in a new or existing 529 College Savings Program Direct Plan account. The New York 529 College Savings Program, an investment tool designed to help families save for college, is overseen by DiNapoli’s office in partnership with the Higher Education Services Corp.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/may15/050515a.htm?utm_source=weeklynews20150510&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=050515arelease

Woman indicted for alleged stealing pension benefits payable to her deceased mother
New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced the unsealing of a one count indictment charging Linda Miller, 57, a resident of Englewood, N.J., with grand larceny in the second degree, a class C felony, in Albany County Court. Miller is alleged to have stolen over $162,000 in pension benefits from the New York State and Local Employees Retirement System, payable to her deceased mother, Josephine Miller.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/may15/050415.htm?utm_source=weeklynews20150510&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=050415release

New Jersey resident alleged to have stolen pension benefits payable to his deceased godfather

New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced the unsealing of a one count indictment before the Honorable Peter Lynch charging Terence Fitzpatrick, 43, a resident of Monmouth County, New Jersey, with the crime of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a class C felony, in Albany County Court. Fitzpatrick is alleged to have stolen over $78,000 in pension benefits from the New York State and Local Employees Retirement System, payable to his deceased godfather, Thomas Sullivan.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/may15/050415a.htm?utm_source=weeklynews20150510&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=050415arelease

Former Town HighwaySuperintendent found guilty of having stolen $65,000 from the Town
Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced that Roger Burlew, the former Highway Superintendent for the town of Erin who stole $65,000 from the town, has been sentenced to serve six months in jail and five years of probation. As part of Burlew’s sentence, he must also pay full restitution to the town of Erin. In the event that Burlew fails to pay restitution, he faces up to fifteen years in state prison.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/may15/050515.htm?utm_source=weeklynews20150510&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=050515release

Legislative spending for travel and per diems to reported quarterly
State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that his office will report on legislative spending for travel and per diems on a quarterly basis. DiNapoli also announced his office approved 2,178 contracts valued at $2.9 billion and approved more than 2.8 million payments worth more than $19.7 billion in March. His office also rejected 230 contracts and related transactions valued at $364.5 million and nearly 5,000 payments valued at more than $12.3 million due to fraud, waste or other improprieties.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/may15/050515b.htm?utm_source=weeklynews20150510&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=050515brelease

Computerized monitoring system records deemed substantial evidence of guilt in a disciplinary proceeding

Computerized monitoring system records deemed substantial evidence of guilt in a disciplinary proceeding

2015 NY Slip Op 03919, Appellate Division, First Department

An employee [Petitioner] was found guilty of the disciplinary charges filed against him alleging that he failed to follow standard that resulted in an injury to an individual using an “out of service” building elevator. Both elevators in the building were “in inspection mode and not in service when the injury occurred”

The penalty imposed: termination of the Petitioner from his position.

Petitioner filed an Article 78 action challenging the appointing authority’s decision and the penalty imposed. The Appellate Division, citing Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1, 34 NY2d 222, sustained the appointing authority’s decision.

The court explained that substantial evidence in the record supported the appointing officer’s action. The evidence in the record included:

1. The applicable written standard safety measures to be undertaken during elevator repair and/or outages, i.e., the appropriate and necessary warning notice had not been posted by Petitioner

2. Evidence that both elevators being out of service at the same time warranted the standard safety measures of posting out-of-service notices at the elevator banks and securing the elevators so that the public could not use them;

3. Evidence that Petitioner failed to follow these standard procedures;

4. A computerized elevator monitoring system printout and testimony interpreting the data; and

5. Recorded 911 calls.

The Appellate Division explained that notwithstanding Petitioner's arguments to the contrary, the hearing record contained substantial evidence supporting the appointing authority’s decision finding Petitioner [1] guilty of the charges filed against him and [2] the penalty imposed.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03919.htm

_____________

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - a 442-page volume focusing on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. Now available in two formats - as a large, paperback print edition, and as an e-book.

For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html

_____________

Applying the doctrine of estoppel against a governmental entity

Applying the doctrine of estoppel against a governmental entity

2015 NY Slip Op 02551, Appellate Division, Third Department

In Owens v McGuire, 121 AD2d 292, the Appellate Division said that the doctrine of estoppel can only be applied “against a governmental entity if failure to apply the doctrine would defeat a right legally and rightfully obtained.”

In 2004 representatives of the New York State and Local Retirement System [System] told an individual [Member] that he was eligible to receive member service credit in the System for his employment with the Legal Aid Society of Westchester County from 1973 to 1975.

In January 2011, Member filed an application for a retirement allowance. However the System then determined that the Legal Aid Society was not a participating employer in the Retirement System and thus Member was not entitled to member service credit for the period during which he served with the Legal Aid Society. Member, seeking a reversal of the System’s determination, requested, and was given a hearing

In the course of the hearing a number of Retirement System employees testified that the Legal Aid Society was not a participating employer and the Hearing Officer denied Member's application for member service credit for the period during which he was employed by the Legal Aid Society. The Comptroller adopted the hearing officer’s ruling and Member appealed.

The Appellate Division sustained the Comptroller’s decision, explaining that a “petitioner has the burden of proof to establish his [or her] entitlement to retirement [member] service credit.” Here, noted the court, Member had testified that he had no evidence that the Legal Aid Society was ever a participating employer in the Retirement System.

Accordingly, said the court, inasmuch as the record reflects that Member was not employed by a participating employer during the period in question, the Comptroller’s denial of the retirement service credit was supported by substantial evidence.

Member had also contended that the System was estopped from denying the retirement member service credit based on the earlier misinformation provided to him by employees of the Retirement System. The court disagreed and rejected this branch of Member’s appeal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_02551.htm

The absence of the individual who rated the employee unsatisfactory from the administrative hearing may be cured by the testimony of a superior who also observed and rated the employee’s performance

The absence of the individual who rated the employee unsatisfactory from the administrative hearing may be cured by the testimony of a superior who also observed and rated the employee’s performance

2015 NY Slip Op 03787, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court denied a teacher’s [Teacher] petition seeking to annul the appointing authority’s sustaining unsatisfactory rating given Teacher for the school year in question.

Teacher appealed but the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s determination.

Teacher had contended that the appointing authority had “violated Department of Education Bylaw §4.3.3,” alleging that the assistant principal responsible for three of the four unsatisfactory observation reports was not present at the administrative hearing at which Teacher had challenged the performance rating he had received.

The Appellate Division first addressed a procedural issue – was Teacher’s complaint with respect to the absence of the assistance principal from the hearing ripe for the court’s review. It decided that Teacher’s claim regarding the absence of the assistant principal “was unpreserved” as Teacher did not raise this issue before the agency, citing Seitelman v Lavine, 36 NY2d 165 and thus could not be considered in this appeal.

Not withstanding the rejection of Teacher’s challenge on procedural grounds, the court said that regardless of the failure of Teacher to preserve the matter for the purpose of appeal, the record showed that the appointing authority’s determination had a rational basis as it was supported by the testimony of the school principal, who conducted a formal observation of Teacher’s performance and reached the same conclusions as the assistant principal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03787.htm

An employee injured on the job may sue for injuries he or she subsequently suffered while being transported to a hospital for treatment for his or her job related injuries

An employee injured on the job may sue for injuries he or she subsequently suffered while being  transported to a hospital for treatment for his or her job related injuries

2015 NY Slip Op 03506, Appellate Division, Second Department

A correction officer [Officer] sustained an injury in the course of his employment at a New York City corrections facility.  While Officer was being transported in a New York City Fire Department ambulance to a local hospital, the ambulance was involved in a motor vehicle accident. 

Officer applied for workers' compensation benefits for the injuries he sustained in the prison. In addition, Officer filed a lawsuit against, among others, the City of New York, the New York City Fire Department and the ambulance driver [Defendants] seeking damages for the injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of the motor vehicle accident that  occurred while he was being transported to the hospital.

Supreme Court denied Defendants’ motions to {1] amend its answer “to add an affirmative defense based on the exclusivity of the Workers' Compensation Law,” and [2] for summary judgment “dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.” 

Defendants appealed but the Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court’s ruling.

While "In general, workers compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy of an employee against an employer for any damages sustained from injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment," the Appellate Division said that even if a plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits, he or she is not precluded from commencing a separate action based on subsequent negligent conduct to recover damages for injuries causally related to the initial on-the-job injury, "but which did not arise out of or in the course of the plaintiff's employment.”

The Appellate Division found that such was the case in this action, explaining that notwithstanding Officer’s filing a claim for workers' compensation benefits for the injuries he sustained “on the job,” he was not precluded from commencing a separate action to recover for damages he allegedly suffered that were “caused by separate injuries that occurred outside the scope of his employment” – i.e., in the course of his being transported to a hospital by ambulance. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03506.htm

A police department may not be liable injuries caused by a police officer if the officer was not acting "within the scope of his or her employment and in furtherance of the employer's business."

A police department may not be liable injuries caused by a police officer if the officer was not acting "within the scope of his or her employment and in furtherance of the employer's business."

2015 NY Slip Op 03496, Appellate Division, Second Department

Among the defendants in this wrongful death action involving a police officer [Officer] were Officer’s employers: the Town Police Department and Town [Defendants]. 

The complaint alleged that Officer was handling his "off-duty handgun" when it went off and killed his friend, the deceased victim [Victim]. The Administrator of Victim’s estate and family members sued the Defendants, alleging, in relevant part, that Defendants were liable for the Victim’s death because Defendants were negligent in the hiring, retention, and supervision” of Officer. It was also claimed that the Defendant's were "vicariously liable" for Victim’s death pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Supreme Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss them from the action “for failure to state a cause of action.” Defendants appealed. The Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court should have granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint as to them.

As to the Administrator’s “negligent hiring, retention and supervision” claims, the Appellate Division explained that a necessary element of this cause of action is that the "employer knew or should have known of the employee's propensity for the conduct which caused the injury." 

Here, said the Appellate Division, the evidentiary material submitted by Administrator failed to demonstrate that Defendants were guilty of the alleged “negligent hiring, retention, or supervision” of Officer.

Addressing that part of  Administrator’s compliant that alleged Defendants were vicariously liable pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, the Appellate Division said that the doctrine of respondeat superior requires a showing that alleged wrongdoing committed by the employer’s employee occurred while that employee was acting “within the scope of employment and in furtherance of the employer's business."

The Appellate Division found that although Administrator’s complaint “generally alleged” that Officer was acting within the scope of his employment and in furtherance of the Defendant’s' purpose, the fact alleged by Administrator was “not a fact at all” and “no significant dispute exists regarding it.”  Again, said the Appellate Division, the Supreme Court “should have granted” Defendants’ motion to dismiss the part of Administrator’s cause of action.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03496.htm

The activities of the State’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics and the Legislative Ethics Commission to be reviewed

The activities of the State’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics and the Legislative Ethics Commission to be reviewed

Members of a Review Commission, the JCOPE Review Commission, have been appointed. The Review Commission is to review and evaluate the activities and performance of the State’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics and the Legislative Ethics Commission.

The Review Commission's report addressing the State’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics and the Legislative Ethics Commission activities, and which is to include its recommendations with respect to strengthening the administration and enforcement of ethics laws in New York State, must be delivered to the Governor and to the Legislature on or before November 1, 2015.

The eight individuals named to the Review Commission by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, Temporary President and Majority Leader of the Senate Dean G. Skelos, and Speaker of the Assembly Carl E. Heastie are:

Anthony Crowell, Dean at New York Law School and former counsel to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is an expert in state and local government law. He also previously served as Special Counsel to the Mayor and Assistant Corporation Counsel in the New York City Law Department’s Tax & Condemnation and Legal Counsel Divisions, and at the International City/County Management Association. Dean Crowell earned a law degree, cum laude, from American University and a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania.

Michael S. Feldberg is a partner at Allen & Overy LLP, where he is the head of the firm’s U.S. litigation practice. He is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and has experience litigating and trying cases in a wide variety of areas, with a special emphasis on the defense of federal criminal and regulatory cases as well as federal civil litigation. He graduated from Harvard Law School, cum laude, in 1977, and Harvard College, magna cum laude, in 1973.

Seymour James is the Attorney-in-Chief of The Legal Aid Society in New York City. Mr. James joined The Legal Aid Society in 1974 as a staff attorney and has served in various supervisory capacities. He is a member of the New York State Justice Task Force, the Committee on Character and Fitness for the Second Judicial Department, and the New York State Permanent Sentencing Commission, and was recently appointed to Mayor DeBlasio's Task Force on Behavioral Health and the Criminal Justice System. James also serves on the Executive Committee of the State Bar's Criminal Justice Section and on the State Bar's Committee on Leadership Development. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Correctional Association of New York and the New York State Defenders Association and a member of the Chief Defender Council and the Defender Policy Group of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. James earned his law degree from Boston University School of Law, and his undergraduate degree from Brown University.

Tony Jordan was elected as Washington County District Attorney in 2013. Prior to becoming district attorney he served in the New York State Assembly for three terms representing parts of Saratoga and Washington Counties. Jordan was a partner in the law firm of Jordan & Kelly LLC, and served as an Assistant District Attorney in Washington County before his time in the Assembly. He earned a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1995 magna cum laude, and received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1986.

William LaPiana is the Rita and Joseph Solomon Professor of Wills, Trusts, as well as the Estates Director, Estate Planning, Graduate Tax Program for New York Law School, where he has taught since 1987. Prior to teaching, he also served as an associate at Davis Polk & Wardwell in New York. Dr. LaPiana is a Buffalo native who holds both a Ph.D. in History and a J.D. from Harvard, where he also received his B.A. and an M.A.

Elizabeth Moore is currently Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Con Edison. She was formerly a former partner in the firm of Nixon Peabody LLP, where she specialized in public finance, employment law, procurement policy, and government compliance and regulatory issues. Ms. Moore previously served for 12 years in the administration of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, and was Counsel to the Governor from 1991 to 1994. Moore earned a law degree from St. John’s University and a Bachelor of Science from the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University, where she is a member of the Board of Trustees.

Patricia Salkin, Dean at Touro Law School, is a nationally recognized scholar on land use law and zoning. She formerly served as a professor of law, as well as Associate Dean and Director of the Government Law Center of Albany Law School and as an Assistant Counsel for NYS Office of Rural Affairs. Dean Salkin is co-chair of the NYS Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar. She served two terms as an appointed member of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, a Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dean Salkin earned a law degree, cum laude, from Albany Law School of Union University, and a Bachelor of Arts degree, cum laude, from the State University at Albany.

Former Senator Dale Volker represented Western New Yorkers in the State Legislature for over 35 years before retiring in 2010. Formerly a police officer, he was first elected to the New York State Assembly in 1972, and three years later, won a special election to the Senate. During his time as a Senator he served as chairman of the Energy and Codes committees, as well as the Subcommittee on Alcoholism. Senator Volker earned his law degree from the University of Buffalo and his undergraduate degree from Canisius College.