Restoration of leave credits used during an involuntary §72.1 leave

Restoration of leave credits used during an involuntary §72.1 leave

Vickery v Sinnott, 238 AD2d 818

§72.1 authorizes an appointing authority to place an employee on leave if a medical officer selected by civil service department or appropriate commission certifies that the employee is not physically or mentally fit to perform the duties of his or her position.

If, however, the appointing authority determines that there is probable cause to believe that the continued presence of the employee on the job represents a potential danger to persons or property, or would severely interfere with the operations of the agency, another §-- §72.5 -- allows the employee to be placed immediately on an involuntary leave of absence.

An employee who is placed on leave pursuant to §72.5 may use all of his or her leave credits.

If the individual is later determined not to be physically or mentally unfit for duty, he or she is to be reinstated to the position and leave credits used, or salary lost, is to be restored to the employee, less any compensation he or she may have earned or unemployment benefits received during the period of the §72 leave.

Although one might assume that the restoration of such credits is automatic, the Vickery decision suggests that such is not the case. Here the Appellate Division concluded that if the appointing authority refuses to restore such leave credits, or "lost salary," the employee must commence a timely action to compel it to do so.

On April 20, 1993 Robert Vickery, a parole officer, was told that he was being placed on  leave of absence involuntarily pursuant to §72.5 by the Division of Parole. About six months later Vickery was returned to duty. The Division, however, did not restore Vickery's leave credits to him.

Vickery sued, contending that his reinstatement constituted a de facto determination that he was not physically or mentally unfit to perform his duties and that he was entitled to have the leave credits used to continue him on the payroll restored to him as a matter of law.

The problem here, however, was that despite the fact that the Division wrote to Vickery in March 1994 that he would be required to "charge the time missed from work against his accrued leave credits," he did not initiate litigation challenging that determination until March 1995.

This, said the Appellate Division, meant that even if Vickery was correct that his reinstatement meant that he was not incapacitated from performing his duties, his claim was time-barred. Why was the action time-barred? Because, said the Court, Vickery had to initiate his Article 78 contesting the Division's decision within four months of its final determination. His failure to do so was fatal to his pressing his claim for restoration of his leave credits.

Possible consequences of a police officer volunteering to serve as a defense witnesses in a criminal matter

Possible consequences of a police officer volunteering  to serve as a defense witnesses in a criminal matter

Green v Philadelphia Housing Authority, 105 F.3d 882

Sometimes a police officer is asked to volunteer to be a defense witness at a criminal trial or at a preliminary criminal proceeding. The Green decision explores a number of issues that could arise when a law enforcement officer agrees to serve as a witness for a defendant in a some aspect of a criminal proceeding and the possible consequences of such participation.

Donald Green, a police officer for the Philadelphia Housing Authority, appeared at a bail hearing but did not give testimony. The authority later  transferred Donald Green from special drug enforcement duty to regular patrol duty.

Green contended that his transfer constituted unlawful retaliation for his participating in a protected First Amendment activity. He sued the Authority and a number of his superiors. He failed, however, to persuade the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, that his rights had been violated.

Green had agreed to serve as a character witness for Herbert Keller, the son of a long time friend. He sought and obtained approval to do so from his superiors, provided he participated "during his lunch hour and in civilian clothing." When Green appeared at the hearing, he learned that the charges pending against Keller "included organized crime activity in connection with the Stanfa crime organization."  Green told Keller he could not be associated with the case and left the hearing without testifying.

Conceding that there was no information, or even any suspicion, that Green was involved with organized crime, PHA claimed that his transfer was nonetheless justified. It explained that Green was reassigned "in case there was anything where [the Housing Authority Police Department] might be embarrassed . . ." and because it "was right for the organization."

The Court, applying the "Pickering balancing test" [Pickering v Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563], ruled that Green had to meet the following conditions to prevail:

a. His court appearance must constitute "speech ... on a matter of public concern;" and

b. The public interest favoring his expression "must not be outweighed by any injury the speech could cause to the interest of the state as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."

The Circuit Court decided that a public employee's appearance as a witness, even in the absence of actual testimony, is "speech" under Pickering and that a public employee's speech involves a matter of public concern if it can "be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community."

Although Green satisfied both of these requirements according to the Court, this did not prove sufficient for him to win his appeal. The question as to whether Green's free speech interest in testifying as a character witness is outweighed by any injury the speech could cause to the interests of the Housing Authority Police Department as the employer proved to be the critical element in the Court's analysis.

On this issue the Court concluded that "if Green's court appearance could potentially disrupt the work of the Housing Authority Police Department, and this potential for injury outweighs the public's interest in Green's speech, then judgment for the Authority is proper." The Court agreed with the district court's ruling in the Authority's favor as a matter of law. The District Court had decided that Green's appearance at the bail hearing injured PHA's interests in minimizing departmental disruption and maintaining an environment of trust and security.

The Circuit Court held that the fact that Green appeared as a witness at a bail hearing in contrast to serving as a witness at a trial was not compelling when compared to the interests of the Housing Authority Police Department as an employer to:

a. fight drugs and crime successfully;

b. protect the safety of its officers and other members of the community;

c. foster trust and confidence among its officers and between its officers and other law enforcement drug units; and

d. protecting the Housing Authority Police Department's reputation.

The Court rejected Green's argument that he should not be held responsible for creating the potential disruption because he followed departmental procedures and testified only after receiving express permission to do so from his superiors.

Significantly, the Circuit Court held that a public employee in a sensitive position like Green's cannot turn a blind eye to the possible consequences of his voluntary testimony. The responsibility must lie with Green to investigate the nature of the criminal charges, and to bear any risks associated with his voluntary court appearance.

Nonmandatory subject of collective bargaining

Nonmandatory subject of collective bargaining

Matter of Village of Buchanan, 29 PERB 3061

One of the items submitted to compulsory interest arbitration by the Buchanan Police Association concerned a demand involving the "minimum time period a floater will work." The demand required a floater to be called in only for full [four day] tours of duty.

PERB affirmed the administrative law judges ruling that this was a nonmandatory subject of collective bargaining as it "interfered with the Village's right to determine the number of police officers on duty at a given time."

Alleging misconduct by an arbitrator

Alleging misconduct by an arbitrator

Security Unit Employees v New York State Correctional Services, 36 AD2d 546

When must a party raise the issue of misconduct by an arbitrator as justification for vacating an arbitration award? If a party waits until the matter is before an appellate body before first raising the question, its apparently too late.

As the Court commented in the Security Unit Employees case, if a party wishes to vacate an arbitrator's award on the ground of misconduct by the arbitrator, the allegation may not be initially raised in the course of an appeal.

The Appellate Division refused to listen to such an allegation in the course of its consideration of the union's appeal seeking to vacate an arbitration award on the grounds of misconduct by the arbitrator.

The union also claimed that the arbitrator failed to issue the arbitration decision within "the contractual time limitation" for issuing awards.

The Appellate Division said that the "short delay" in issuing the award did not prejudice the union and declined to set aside the award for that reason.

Improper practice determinations

Improper practice determinations

Selected determinations by the Public Employment Relations Board

Summarized below are selected rulings by PERB administrative law judges concerning improper practice charges:

1. BREACH OF CONTRACT: Allegations that an employee organization has refused to schedule disciplinary hearings in accordance with the time limits set out in the collective bargaining agreement did not constitute an improper practice within the meaning of the Taylor Law. PERB does not have jurisdiction to resolve alleged breaches or violations of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. PERB does have jurisdiction, however, where it is shown that the "at-issue contractual provision has been totally abandoned." [Matter of the Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Association, 30 PERB 4502; Monte Klein, Director of Employment Practices and Representation]

2. BARGAINING UNIT WORK: A school district did not commit an improper practice by unilaterally entering into an agreement with a BOCES which resulted in BOCES supplying a remedial mathematics teacher notwithstanding the fact that teaching remedial mathematics was "exclusive bargaining unit work." Citing Webster Central School District v PERB, 75 NY2d 619, PERB's administrative law judge held that "the decision of a school board to contract for a BOCES instructional program" is not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. [Matter of Odessa-Montour Central School District, 30 PERB 4505; Administrative Law Judge J. Albert Barsamian]

3. INTEREST ARBITRATION: A party may not convert a nonmandatory subject of collective bargaining under the Taylor into a mandatory subject of negotiations by submitting it to compulsory interest arbitration. It was an improper practice for the employer submit its contract  demands seeking to eliminate contract provisions concerning minimum staffing and call-back pay to compulsory interest arbitration. Matter of Glens Falls Firefighters Union, 30 PERB 4506, Kenneth J. Toomey, Assistant Director of Public Employment Practices and Representation.

4. TRANSFER OF SERVICES: It was an improper practice for a school district to unilaterally transfer its printing services then being exclusively performed by bargaining unit employees to a BOCES. Although the unilateral transfers of services to a BOCES is permitted, such transfers are limited to educational services and "services closely related thereto." PERB's administrative law judge ruled that the Webster ruling [75 NY2d 619 and §1950 of the Education Law cannot be read to encompass printing functions as "educational services and services closely related thereto ... by whatever name." Matter of Vestal Employee Association, NEA/NY, 30 PERB 4515, Administrative Law Judge J. Albert Barsamian.

5. EXPIRATION OF AGREEMENT: The employer violated the Taylor Law by refusing to continue paying the uniform allowance contained  in the parties expired collective bargaining agreement. Inclusion of the term "of each year of the agreement" did not serve to limit the payment of the benefit only for the life of the agreement absent a "sunset provision" demonstrating that the parties intended to limit payment of the benefit to the life of the agreement. [Matter of the Division of State Police, 30 PERB 4515, Administrative Law Judge Susan A. Comenzo]

Cofsky v Sinnott

Freedom of information

McCray v Lennon, NYS Supreme Court

Louis McCray, currently serving twenty years to life at Green Haven Correctional Facility, filed a Freedom of Information [FOIL] request seeking agency records that would identify the employment status, titles, and date of termination of a certain employee of a police department. When the Department refused to provide the information on the grounds that McCray had not properly identify the information he was seeking, McCray sued.

Citing Bahlman v Brier, 119 Misc2d 110, the Court ruled that the disclosure of such employee information would be an invasion of privacy within the meaning of §87.2 of the Public Officers Law and dismissed McCray complaint.

The Court said that there was a need to balance the public's right to know with the right of innocent individuals to be protected from unwarranted intrusions in their personal lives. Accordingly, the Court concluded, the Department's refusal to release information demanded, even if the request had been properly made, was appropriate because of the nature of the requested information.

Fire marshals and police officers

Fire marshals and police officers

Rossi v NYCMTA, NYS Supreme Court

Are New York City fire marshals police officers? The answer to this question proved to be the key to resolving Rossi v the New York City Municipal Transit Authority [NYCMTA]. City fire marshals Thomas Rossi and Gregory A. Papa complained that NYCMTA failed to include fire marshals in its police ride program as required by §1266(14) of the Public Authorities Law.

§1266.14 requires NYCMTA, in consultation with the Long Island Rail Road, to "establish and implement a "no fare program" on the Long Island Rail Road for police officers employed by the City of New York, the County of Nassau, Nassau County villages, the Division of State Police and a number of other public employers. The goal of the program was to increase protection and improve safety for its commuters by encouraging a "police presence" on commuter trains.

Claiming fire marshals have police officer status, Papa challenged the rejection of his application for a monthly transit pass under the program, citing as authority for his position Criminal Procedure Law, §1.20[34](i) and the Administrative Code of the City of New York §15-117. Two law suits were filed, one by Rossi and a second by Papa, when NYCMTA's refused to include the City's 238 fire marshals in the program. The two were later consolidated into a single action.

In defending its decision, NYCMTA argued  that the program was only available "to active members in good standing of the police departments specifically referenced in the [§1266(14) of the Public Authorities Law] ... [and] does not apply to individuals not ordinarily thought of as police officers, such as fire marshals, district attorney investigators and enforcement agents of the State's Department of Taxation and Finance."

The Court, disagreed, ruling that NYCMTA's implementation of the police pass program constituted an irrational construction of the §1266(14).

Noting that the fire marshals carried firearms and had the same power of arrest as members of the New York City Police Department, the Court directed NYCMTA to include all police officers employed by the City of New York, the chief and deputy fire marshals, the supervising fire marshal and the fire marshals of the bureau of fire investigation in the program.

The Court also commented that "[a]ll police officers in the State of New York derive their official status from the provisions of §1.20(34) of the Criminal Procedure Law."

Comparing administrative positions

Comparing administrative positions

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 13733

In 1995 the Windham-Ashland-Jewett Central School District's budget was defeated. In response, the superintendent recommended that one position of building principal, together with the position of curriculum coordinator, be abolished and replaced by a new position of assistant superintendent. As a result, the building principal position held by Deborah Elmendorf was abolished effective June 30, 1995. She was not interviewed for the assistant superintendent position and Janette Bain was appointed to the title effective August 17, 1995.

Elmendorf appealed to the Commissioner of Education, contending that under §2510(1) of the Education Law she was entitled to the appointment because she was the "senior excessed administrator" in the administrative tenure area. In rebuttal, the District argued that the position of assistant superintendent is not similar to the position of building principal and thus §2510(1) was not relevant.

NOTE: §2510(1) essentially provides that if an office or position is abolished and another office or position performing similar duties is created, the incumbent of the abolished position "shall be appointed to the office or position thus created without reduction in salary or increment, provided the record of such person has been one of faithful, competent service in the office or position he has filled."

Although both titles were in the administrative tenure area, the Commissioner pointed out that Elmendorf would be entitled to appointment in a newly created position only if the duties of the new position were similar to those of her former position. The test applied in such situations when classroom teachers are involved is whether more than 50% of the duties to be performed by the incumbent of the new position are similar to those of his or her former positions. The Commissioner said that this comparison is more difficult when administrative positions are involved because they "do not lend themselves to the same analysis used under §2510 when teaching positions are concerned."

In any event, Elmendorf had the burden of proving that a majority of the duties of the new position are similar to those of her former position. To succeed, Elmendorf had to demonstrate that the degree of comparable skill and experience required to carry out the duties of both positions were similar. The Commissioner rejected Elmendorf's attempt to do this by allocating percentages of duties and creating a mathematical formula to calculate the similarities of duties between the two positions.

Instead the Commissioner compared the job descriptions of the two positions, concluding that "although there are several areas ... that were transferred to the new title ... the new position includes several functions which differ significantly from those of a building principal." Dismissing Elmendorf's appeal, the Commissioner also found it significant that the building principal position only required School Administrator and Supervisor certification while the assistant superintendent required School District Administrator certification.

As to any claim to a "due process hearing" prior to Elmendorf's termination, the Commissioner said that under the circumstances the District had an obligation to provide "... a due process hearing [to consider] the alleged similarity of the duties of the two positions," but the District's violation of Elmendorf's due process rights alone does not mean that she is entitled to the position.

Annulment of a disciplinary termination

Annulment of a disciplinary termination

Suarez v Egginton, 236 A.D.2d 547

Washington M. Suarez was terminated from his position after being found guilty of misconduct. This finding was based entirely on Suarez being convicted of criminal charges based on this misconduct. Suarez asked the Appellate Division to annul the administrative determination dismissing him "upon his assumption that the judgment in the criminal action would be reversed." As the conviction was upheld, the Appellate Division said that "the sole basis for annulment disappeared."

The Appellate Division noted that the disciplinary determination was based on substantial evidence. Even if the criminal conviction were reversed because the misconduct was proved "beyond a reasonable doubt," it would seem that the administrative determination based on substantial evidence would survive. The procedures underlying §30.1.e of the Public Officers Law appears to support such a conclusion.

Substitute service credit

Substitute service credit

Hudson v Hempstead UFSD, NYS Supreme Court

The Hudson case concerned the proper counting of service as a substitute teacher for the purposes of determining if a teacher had obtained tenure. The ruling emphasizes the importance of considering substitute service in making tenure decisions for probationary employees.

The Supreme Court commented in its decision that this was a case of "first impression." That is, the issue of crediting service as a "permanent substitute" had never before been litigated in New York State.

A probationary employee is deemed to have acquired tenure "by estoppel"  if the employer fails or neglects to take timely action to terminate the services of the probationer prior to end of his or her maximum period of probation.

In the Hudson case, Shawn Hudson had served as a per-diem substitute elementary school teacher for a number of years with the Hempstead Union Free School District. The District then appointed him as a "permanent substitute" for a teacher while she was on maternity leave for the school year.  Hudson was subsequently appointed as an elementary school teacher subject to a two-year probationary period. The probationary period was to end February 1, 1995.

Prior to the end of this probationary period, Hudson signed a document advising him that the superintendent would not recommend him for tenure at the end of his probationary period and that his probationary period would be extended for another year and would now run through February 1, 1996. The document also contained a waiver whereby Hudson agreed not to claim tenure by estoppel based on his employment with the District after February 1, 1995.

On December 12, 1994 Hudson was told in a letter that his probationary period would not be extended after all and that he was terminated effective February 1, 1995.  Hudson sued.

Hudson argued that (1) he had acquired tenure by estoppel and (2) as a tenured teacher, he could not be discharged without formal proceedings being taken pursuant to Education Law. How could Hudson argue this given the fact that he had waived his right to tenure by estoppel? Hudson asserted and the Court agreed that the District's letter dated December 12, 1994 rendered Hudson's waiver of any claim to tenure by estoppel null and void. Simply put, when the District reneged on its offer of an additional year of probation, all bets were off.

NOTE: The Court ruled that Hudson's state of mind when he signed the letter was not relevant to the issue of whether or not he was actually entitled to credit towards tenure.

Hudson's claim of tenure by estoppel amounted to a counting of the days he served. He contended that by tacking together all of his service in the District, he had served a total of three or more years with Hempstead and therefore was entitled to "Jarema Credit."*He included his service as a full-time substitute teacher for one school year, other  service as a substitute for the District, his service as a "permanent substitute," and his probationary service.

The District contended that only Hudson's full-time substitute service (one school year) and his time as a probationary teacher (slightly less than two years) should be counted and credited toward the three-year service requirement for tenure. Thus, argued the District's "no hearing was required under the Education Law and it had the right to discharge [Hudson] without cause."

The Court said that central to resolving the dispute between the parties was the calculation of Jarema credit. That determination, in turn, depended on whether Hudson was to be given credit for the time he served as a "permanent substitute." To resolve the issue, the Court said it must first look to the regulations of the Commissioner of Education in an attempt to find the classifications of the various categories of teacher service.

Was the position "permanent substitute" analogous to a "regular substitute" within the meaning of §3012.1(a)?  Here the Court decided  that it was and that the Board of Education was "estopped from denying Hudson Jarema Credit for the time in which he served as a "permanent substitute."

According to the ruling,  "the provisions of the Education Law applicable to the granting of tenure are in derogation of the common law and should be strictly construed." The Court said that "a board of education may not deny tenure and other rights to its employees by refusing to designate such employees by the appropriate title or by designating their positions as "acting" or "temporary."

Citing Ricca v Board of Education, 47 NY2d 385. the Court concluded that whether or not a Board of Education acted intentionally to circumvent the tenure laws is not determinative because "even good faith violations of the tenure system must be forbidden, lest the entire edifice crumble from the cumulative effect of numerous well-intentioned exceptions."

Another argument made by Hempstead was that Hudson's periods of service in which the he served as a regular substitute must have been immediately preceded his probationary appointment to be considered. The District contended that because Hudson served certain semesters less than full time prior to his probationary period, he could not qualify for Jarema credit.

Not so, said the Court.  "While the Commissioner of Education noted in Matter of Carey, 31 Ed. Dept. Rep. 394 (1992), that there is a distinction between seniority credit and 'Jarema Credit,' he did not state that in order to qualify for 'Jarema Credit,' the full-time substitute work must come immediately before the probationary appointment."

In addition, the Court commented that "... §3012 does not impose such a requirement and it is permissible for a teacher to achieve tenure by estoppel ... by tacking together two non-continuous periods of service," quoting from Lindsey v Mt. Morris Board of Education, 172 AD2d 185.

The Court decided that Hudson's "service sufficient to allow the petitioner to qualify for 'Jarema Credit' for the regular substitute periods in which he served."

Concluding that Hudson had attained tenure by estoppel and thus "should not have been discharged without formal proceedings pursuant to Education Law §3012(2) being brought," the Court ruled that he was entitled to back pay for the period following his termination, subject to an adjustment based on Hudson's "mitigation of those damages."

* §2509.1(a), the "Jarema Act," provides that the statutory three-year probationary period for teachers is reduced to one year if the teacher rendered satisfactory service as a "regular substitute" for two years or more prior to the teacher's probationary appointment by the same school district. The probationary period is not to exceed two years in situations involving the appointment of a probationary teacher who was tenured in another school district.  The Education Commissioner has  distinguished between "Jarema Credit" and "seniority credit" for the purposes of §2510. He said that  seniority credit recognizes continuous full-time service in a  school district and unlike Jarema credit,  may not be used  to obligate a board to grant tenure to a teacher. Tenure decisions may be  made  without  regard to a teacher's  accumulated  seniority. Citing  Matter of Crandall (20 Ed. Dept. Rep. 16),  the Commissioner said "seniority, then,  relates only to a teacher's rights vis-à-vis other teachers" such as may be relevant in a layoff situation. The Commissioner observed that in such a context, "it is reasonable to assume that  teachers  will  be  retained according  to  the  length  of continuous [i.e., uninterrupted] service, whether  such  service  was  all  rendered subsequent to a probationary appointment or was rendered partly before and partly after such an appointment."

Right to an appointment

Right to an appointment

Mitchell v Board of Education, Appellate Division

From time to time an individual on a civil service eligible list will sue in an effort to obtain an appointment to a vacant position that the appointing authority has decided not to fill. Assuming that the appointing authority is acting in good faith, it is well settled that an appointing authority is not required to fill a vacant position even if a mandatory eligible list for the title exists. This was one of the issues involved in the Mitchell case.

Robert L. Mitchell was eligible and reachable for appointment as an Area Manager of School Maintenance. In fact he alleged that he was "next on the list" for  appointment to the title when the New York City Board of Education abolished two of its four area manager positions. The two positions apparently were vacant at the time they were abolished.

Mitchell sued, seeking a court order directing  his appointment to one of the two abolished positions. The Appellate Division dismissed his position, holding that Mitchell "has not demonstrated any entitlement to relief under the circumstances presented."

Here Mitchell had two problems. First, as the Appellate Division noted, even assuming that he was entitled to consideration for either of the two abolished area manager positions, he was not, as a matter of law, entitled to appointment to the title.

It is well settled that an appointing authority is not required to fill a position that is vacant simply because there is a mandatory, or preferred, eligible list for the title.

 As the Board of Education conceded, Mitchell was eligible for one of the two remaining area manager positions, should one become available prior to the expiration of the eligible list and it elected to fill it.

Further, selection for the appointment would be subject to the so-called "rule of three," Civil Service Law §61. Mitchell would not have any automatic right to selection for appointment merely because he was the highest ranking eligible on the list.

As another illustration as to why Mitchell had no right to an appointment as an area manager, assume that one of the two remaining area manager positions were to be abolished. Presumably a preferred list would be established as a result.

If the remaining area manager position were later to become vacant, clearly the individual on the preferred list would be certified for appointment first, notwithstanding the existence of any eligible list resulting from a competitive examination for the title, including the list on which Mitchell's name appeared.

Writ of Mandamus

Writ of Mandamus

2018 NY Slip Op 07694, Court of Appeals

In this action the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissing the Plaintiffs' petition seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the New York City Police Department and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to enforce certain laws.

The court explained that a writ of mandamus "is an extraordinary remedy 'that is available only in limited circumstances,'" citing Matter of County of Chemung v Shah, 28 NY3d 244. Mandamus, said the Court of Appeals, is available as a remedy "only to enforce a clear legal right where the public official has failed to perform a duty enjoined by law."

Further, although mandamus to compel "is an appropriate remedy to enforce the performance of a ministerial duty, it is well settled that it will not be awarded to compel an act in respect to which [a public] officer may exercise judgment or discretion," as the court held in Matter of Gimprich v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 306 NY 401.

As to what constitutes a "discretionary acts" such acts involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results in contrast to ministerial acts involving "direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result." Indeed, mandamus may only be used to compel a public officer to execute a legal duty; it may not "direct how [the officer] shall perform that duty," as was noted in People ex rel. Schau v McWilliams, 185 NY 92.

In this action the enforcement of the laws cited by the Plaintiffs would involve some exercise of discretion. Additionally, Plaintiffs did not seek to compel the performance of ministerial duties but, rather, seek to compel a particular outcome. Thus, concluded the Court of Appeals, "mandamus is not the appropriate vehicle for the relief sought."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_07694.htm