ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Jul 14, 2023

New York State Comptroller DiNapoli releases State Department and Agency audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following State Department and Agency  audits were issued on July 13, 2023.

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the entire audit report.

 

Department of Health - Improper Medicaid Managed Care Payments for Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies on Behalf of Recipients in Nursing Homes (Follow-Up) (2023-F-12)
For Medicaid recipients enrolled in managed care, the Department of Health pays managed care organizations (MCOs) a monthly premium for each recipient and, in turn, the MCOs arrange for their health care services, including necessary durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS). For recipients in nursing homes, Medicaid nursing home reimbursement rates generally include the cost of most DMEPOS and separate payments for DMEPOS should not be made when the cost of these items is included in the rate. The initial audit, issued in April 2022, identified $9.6 million in potential overpayments by MCOs for DMEPOS items that likely were already covered under the all-inclusive rate. The follow-up report found DOH made some progress in addressing the problems identified; however, additional actions are needed. In particular, the Office of the Medicaid Inspector General, which investigates and recovers improper Medicaid payments on behalf of the Department of Health, needs to review and recover, as appropriate, the $9.6 million in DMEPOS claims identified. Of the initial report’s four audit recommendations, one was implemented, one was partially implemented, and two were not yet implemented.



Department of Taxation and Finance – Sales Tax Vendor Registration Practices (Follow-Up) (2023-F-5)
Provisions of State Tax Law impose a tax on sales of tangible personal property and certain services, and require vendors that make these sales, including out-of-state sellers and online marketplaces, to register for a Certificate of Authority (COA), collect the tax from customers, and remit the tax to the State. The initial audit, issued in October 2021, found the Department of Taxation and Finance could do more to ensure sales tax vendors that are required to register do so. Auditors identified vendors that were denied a COA but continued to operate and likely make taxable sales. In addition, auditors found unregistered vendors submitted sales tax returns showing taxable sales. The follow-up report determined the Department of Taxation and Finance made progress addressing past issues identified and implemented the one recommendation from the initial audit.

 

New York State Health Insurance Program – CVS Health – Accuracy of Empire Plan Medicare Rx Drug Rebate Revenue Remitted to the Department of Civil Service (2022-S-1)
The Department of Civil Service has contracted with CVS Health to administer the Empire Plan’s prescription drug program. Under the Contract, CVS Health is required to negotiate agreements with drug manufacturers for rebates, discounts, and other consideration and remit the rebate revenue to Civil Service. However, for the period January 2014 through December 2019, auditors identified more than $10.7 million in rebates that CVS Health should have, but did not, invoice or collect – and did not remit to Civil Service.

 

New York State Office for the Aging – Monitoring of Select Programs (Follow-Up) (2023-F-2)
The New York State Office for the Aging (NYSOFA) helps New York residents aged 60 or older be as independent as possible for as long as possible through support services that help them stay in their homes and avoid higher levels of publicly financed care. In 2015, more than 10,000 older New Yorkers though were on waiting lists for these services, which can include home health aides, home-delivered meals, and transportation. As a result, the state earmarked $15 million each from 2019-2020 and 2021-2022 to address the waitlists. However, NYSOFA fell short on delivering all the funding, and of the $30 million, $5.9 million went unspent by agencies who provide services at the county level. The follow-up found that limited progress had been made by NYSOFA to both fund services properly and improve its oversight of the Area Agencies on Aging (AAA). Of the initial report’s five audit recommendations, three were partially implemented and two were not implemented.

 

Office of Information Technology Services – Windows Domain Administration and Management (2022-S-19)
As part of its services, the Office of Information Technology Services (ITS) maintains Active Directory domains on behalf of the state’s Executive agencies. Each Active Directory uses servers, or domain controllers, to manage the access and authentication of stored user credentials, determining who can access file servers and other network resources. Since the Active Directory and the associated domain controllers ultimately control access and authorization in a Microsoft Windows environment, appropriate security measures are vital. However, the audit found that ITS did not have certain security controls in place to ensure appropriate management and monitoring of its Active Directory environment.

 

Office of Mental Health - Benefits Advisement Services for Individuals With Disabilities Seeking Employment (Follow-Up) 2023-F-11
A 2015 report from the New York State Employment First Commission established an Employment First Policy for New York State with the main goal of increasing the employment rate of individuals with disabilities by 5% while also decreasing their poverty rate by 5%. This report tasked the Office of Mental Health (OMH) with developing a life coaching network for individuals with disabilities seeking economic self-sufficiency and creating an interactive web-based platform to provide accurate information and benefits calculators so individuals with disabilities could better assess how work would impact their benefits. The initial audit, issued in July 2021, found that OMH had created a benefits advisement system but had not included all recommended components. The follow-up found that OMH has made progress in implementing these recommendations. Of the initial report’s four audit recommendations, two were partially implemented and 2 were fully implemented.

 

State Education Department – Licensing and Monitoring of Proprietary Schools (Follow-Up) (2023-F-1)
Non-degree-granting proprietary schools provide training in a broad range of disciplines, such as business, computer/information technology, and English as a second language. The State Education Department (SED) is responsible for overseeing these schools to ensure students’ education interests and their tuition investments are protected. A prior audit report, issued in January 2021, found that SED did not perform due diligence in assessing proprietary schools’ financial viability and issued licenses to schools despite evidence of insufficient resources, potentially jeopardizing students’ future employment prospects and their ability to repay loans. The follow-up found that SED made significant progress in addressing the problems identified. Of the initial report’s six audit recommendations, five were implemented and one was partially implemented.

 

State Education Department – Privacy and Security of Student Data (2021-S-29)
The increased reliance on technology for virtual learning during the COVID-19 pandemic gave rise to an escalation of cybersecurity threats for schools. According to a U.S. Government Accountability Office report, the number of students impacted by cyberattacks rose from 39,000 in 2018 to nearly 1.2 million in 2020. The audit found that the State Education Department, which oversees more than 700 school districts with 2.4 million students, did not take appropriate, proactive steps to ensure schools were complying with regulations intended to safeguard the safety and privacy of student data, nor did it fully comply with its own data security protection policies.

 

 

Jul 13, 2023

Parent banned from attending high school athletic events

A parent [Plaintiff], whose daughter played on the high school's varsity girls basketball team, was banned from attending athletic events at the high school* filed a lawsuit against the School District and various school district officials [School District] alleging that School District violated his First Amendment rights, right of assembly, and "retaliation". The jury found for the School District and the federal district court dismissed Plaintiff's action.

Plaintiff appealed, contending that the District Court erred in (1) denying his Rule 50(b) motion with respect to his right of assembly claim, (2) dismissing his Monell claim against School District on School District's motion for summary judgment, and (3) granting the School District’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim.

Addressing Plaintiff's Right of Assembly claims, the Circuit Court, noting it "reviews a district court’s decision on a Rule 50(b) motion de novo, “considering the evidence in the light most favorable to party against whom the motion was made and ... giv[ing] that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that the jury might have drawn in [its] favor from the evidence.” 

The court then observed that here "the jury reasonably concluded that [School District] did not violate [Plaintiff's] right of assembly by banning him from the high school’s athletic events. Although, said the court "The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental", citing Johnson v. Perry, 8594 F.3d 156, "[n]othing in the Constitution requires the Government freely to grant access to all who wish to exercise their right to free speech on every type of Government property without regard to the nature of the property or to the disruption that might be caused by the speaker’s activities.”

The Circuit Court said it has "recognized that school property becomes a limited public forum during school-sponsored athletic events, which 'encourage' attendees to engage in 'expressive activity' such as 'chanting and cheering for whichever team they favor' that schools 'may regulate access to such limited public fora' so long as [their restrictions] are reasonable and viewpoint neutral."

With respect to the District Court’s grant of summary judgment against Plaintiff on his §1983 claim against the School District under color of Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, the Circuit Court explained that, as relevant here, Plaintiff was required to show that a government employee violated his federal rights “pursuant to official municipal policy,” and Plaintiff had "not demonstrated that a government employee violated his federal rights."

* The Circuit Court's decision reports the trial record established Plaintiff, without permission or authorization, "entered the high school after hours through a locked side door, waited outside of the girls’ locker room for students on the varsity girls basketball team to finish practice, gathered several of those students in the cafeteria to discuss concerns about their coach and a potential boycott of an upcoming game, and hugged at least one student who was not his daughter."

Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.

See, also, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education Decision 18,296, in which the genesis of the appeal to the Commissioner was a School Superintendent's prohibiting a parent [Petitioner] from accessing school property based on a faculty advisor's statement that a student at a music rehearsal told him that Petitioner’s “actions caused her to feel uncomfortable.” The Commissioner dismissed the appeal as moot without addressing the merits of the appeal based on the Superintendent's having informed the Petitioner that "the directive would be rescinded "as of June 30, 2023". The Commissioner's decision is posted on the Internet at https://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume62/d18296

 

Jul 12, 2023

Theft of retirement benefits discovered by the Comptroller’s Division of Investigations and the Social Security Administration

On July 11, 2023, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Ryan K. Buchanan and Inspector General for the Social Security Administration Gail S. Ennis announced that Sandra Smith, a resident of Georgia, has pleaded guilty to the federal crime of theft of government funds and must pay back $459,050 in New York state pension and Social Security payments that were issued to her deceased mother-in-law.

Smith pleaded guilty to two counts of theft of government funds. Under her plea agreement, she will pay $264,699 in restitution to the New York State's Employees'  Retirement System [ERS] and $194,351 to the Social Security Administration.

“Exploiting the death of a family member for personal profit is a heinous crime,” DiNapoli said. “The defendant took advantage of our state pension fund and the Social Security Administration but as a result of our joint investigation her crimes  were discovered. She now faces the consequences of her actions. My thanks to U.S. Attorney Buchanan and the Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General [SSA-OIG] for their partnership in ensuring justice was served and restitution was made in this case.”

The defendant’s late-mother-in-law, Minnie Smith, was an employee of the New York State Insurance Fund for 20 years until retiring in 2005. To be closer to family, she later moved from Brooklyn to Georgia and passed away there on Sept. 14, 2006.

As her mother-in-law’s caretaker, Sandra Smith had access to her bank account, which she kept open after her mother-in-law’s death to enable the theft of  continued payments from the New York Employees' Retirement System and the Social Security Administration. The thefts were discovered and investigated by the Comptroller’s Division of Investigations and the SSA-OIG.

Smith, 49, pleaded before Judge Eleanor Ross of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

###

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. New Yorkers can report allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by filing a complaint online at https://www.osc.state.ny.us/investigations, or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

 

Jul 11, 2023

Social media platform Threads launched

New York State public entities on the social media platform Threads with at least one post created in the first 24 hours of the launch of the platform.

Albany Public Library, Albany, New York, Library, Verified - No

NY State Parks, New York, Parks, Verified - Yes

City of New York, New York, New York, City, Verified - Yes

NYS Department of Labor, New York, Labor, Verified - Yes

Minnewaska State Park Preserve, New York, Parks, Verified - No

Westbury Union Free School District, Westbury, New York, Education, Verified - No

Jefferson County Public Health, New York, Public Health, Verified - No

Source: Threads • Updated July 6, 2023, by Nikki Davidson.

Recent decisions issued by the Commissioner of Education

Petitioners in this appeal to the Commissioner of Education alleged the Board of Education failed to hire a school resource officer [SRO] and seek the removal from the board its president and other, unspecified board members [Board]. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal and denied the application.

Petitioners asserted that the Board engaged in willful misconduct and neglect of duty by failing to expeditiously hire a second SRO and requested the Commissioner "remove the board president, and any other board member whose removal [the Commissioner] deems warranted, from office."

According to an affidavit submitted by the board president, “[b]etween June 16, 2022 and November 2022 … there were internal discussions as to where the money would come from to fund [a] second SRO.”  On November 16, 2022, the board rejected a resolution to “authorize the transfer of [funds] from [the] unassigned fund balance to the [SRO] budget code … to cover the cost of a second [SRO].” 

Following commencement of this appeal, the board announced that it had secured a grant to fund the second SRO position and thereafter approved a resolution “to allocate [funds] to cover the cost of the second [SRO] through [the end of the 2022-2023 school year].” 

The Board contended that the appeal should be dismissed for lack of standing, as moot, and for failure to join necessary parties. The Board also contended the appeal should be dismissed on the merits in that the Board acted in good faith with respect to the employment of a second SRO.

The Commissioner dismissed the appeal as moot, explaining that the Commissioner "will only decide matters in actual controversy and will not render a decision on a state of facts that no longer exists due to the passage of time or a change in circumstances."

Further, the Commissioner noted that a Commissioner of Education "may remove a school officer or member of a board of education from office when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the officer or board member has engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law or has willfully disobeyed a decision, order, rule, or regulation of the Board of Regents or the Commissioner." The Commissioner then explained that to be considered willful, "the action of a board member or school officer must have been intentional and committed with a wrongful purpose."

The Commission opined that the record indicated that "the board did not immediately hire a second SRO in June 2022 due to the need to identify a funding stream for the position," and that the board president explained that “the [Board] determined that it would not be prudent to draw from [its] [u]nassigned [f]und [b]alance to pay for a contract that was not contemplated at the time the budget was prepared … the district’s budget is tight and does not allow for significant unbudgeted expenditures.”

Finding that Petitioners "have not proven that the board president engaged in any willful violation of the Education Law" the Commissioner held that "their application for his removal must therefore be denied."

Click HERE to access the decision of the Commissioner in this appeal posted on the Internet.

In addition, the Commissioner of Education recently issued four decisions addressing actions by Boards of Education involving residency and homelessness issues. 

Click on the text in color set out below to access these decisions posted on the Internet.

Decision No. 18,290

Decision No. 18,291

Decision No. 18,292

Decision No. 18,293

 


 

 

 

Jul 10, 2023

Right to privacy

New York Archives [Archives],* published quarterly by the Archives Partnership Trust, is an educational publication about New York State history as revealed by research in archival records maintained throughout the State of New York.

The Summer 2023 issue of  Archives includes an article concerning the decision in Roberson v Rochester Folding Box Company, 171 NY 538, [1902]. Roberson is said to be the genesis of New York States' initial privacy statute, "the earliest of its kind in the nation".

Click HERE to access a variety of postings on "YouTube" addressing the "Right to Privacy" via a link provided in this article published by Archives.

* https://www.nysarchivestrust.org/new-york-archives-magazine

Governments Jump on Threads

On July 10, 2023, GOVTECH TODAY reported that "Hundreds of Government Agencies Have Opened Threads Accounts within the first 24 hours of the social media platform’s launch." Many government agencies and officials are already active on the Twitter competitor Threads" noted GOVTECH TODAY and asked "Is it the future of social media?" Click to READ MORE .

GovTech Today also invites those interested to take "a deeper dive into cybersecurity in state and local government" with its weekly cyber newsletter. [Click to SUBSCRIBE].

 

 

Jul 7, 2023

Designation of Floating Holidays in Lieu of Election Day and Lincoln's Birthday for employees of the State of New York as the employer for Contract Year 2023–2024

The New York State Department of Civil Service has published the following Attendance and Leave Bulletin:

Advisory Memorandum 2023-03

Designation of Floating Holidays in Lieu of Election Day and Lincoln's Birthday [Contract Year 2023–2024]


Text of Advisory Memorandum 2023-03 will be found at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/AdvMemo23-03.cfm

If you wish to print Advisory Memorandum 2023-03 the Department offers a version in PDF format at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/AM2023-03.pdf

To view previous Attendance and Leave bulletins issued by the Department of Civil Service, visit: https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/index.cfm


Efforts to annul the determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights dismissing petitioner's complaint alleging unlawful discrimination rejected

The Appellate Division concluded that the evidence provided to the Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] was sufficient for the ALJ to determine that petitioner in this action did not suffer an adverse employment action as a result of discrimination. Further, said the court,  the additional evidence that petitioner sought to introduce was beyond the scope of the case.


Decided June 30, 2023 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CURRAN, MONTOUR, AND OGDEN, JJ.


994 TP 22-01050

THE MATTER OF KELLY PHILLIPS, PETITIONER,

v

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND CITY OF ROCHESTER, RESPONDENTS.

JEFFREY WICKS, PLLC, ROCHESTER (CHARLES D. STEINMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

LINDA S. KINGSLEY, CORPORATION COUNSEL, ROCHESTER (YVETTE CHANCELLOR GREEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT CITY OF ROCHESTER.

 

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County [Sam L. Valleriani, J.], entered June 22, 2022) to review a determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights. The determination dismissed the complaint of petitioner.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and Executive Law § 298 seeking to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) dismissing her complaint alleging unlawful discrimination. Our review of the determination, which adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who conducted the public hearing, " 'is limited to consideration of whether substantial evidence supports the agency determination' " (Matter of Scheuneman v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 147 AD3d 1523, 1524 [4th Dept 2017], quoting Rainer N. Mittl, Ophthalmologist, P.C. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 NY2d 326, 331 [2003]; see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). " 'Courts may not weigh the evidence or reject [SDHR's] determination where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists. Thus, when a rational basis for the conclusion adopted by [SDHR] is found, the judicial function is exhausted' " (Matter of Russo v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 137 AD3d 1600, 1600 [4th Dept 2016], quoting Matter of State Div. of Human Rights [Granelle], 70 NY2d 100, 106 [1987]).

Contrary to petitioner's contention, there is substantial evidence to support the determination that she was not discriminated against based on her gender. To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination, petitioner was required to demonstrate that she was a member of a protected class, that she was qualified for her position, that she suffered an adverse employment action, and that the adverse action "occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discriminatory motive" (Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 306 [2004]; see Matter of Lyons v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 79 AD3d 1826, 1827 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011]). We agree with SDHR that petitioner failed to establish that she suffered an adverse employment action arising out of the refusal of the Rochester Police Department (RPD) to issue a smaller service weapon (see Matter of Gordon v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 138 AD3d 1477, 1478 [4th Dept 2016]; Lyons, 79 AD3d at 1827). Petitioner further failed to demonstrate that any allegedly adverse employment action " 'occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination' " (Gordon, 138 AD3d at 1478, quoting Forrest, 3 NY3d at 308).

Petitioner's contentions concerning other alleged adverse employment actions are not properly before us inasmuch as the adverse action alleged in the complaint filed with SDHR is limited to the RPD's failure to issue petitioner a smaller service weapon (see generally 9 NYCRR 465.3 [c] [3]) and there is no evidence that either petitioner or the SDHR amended the complaint to expand the scope of the case (see 9 NYCRR 465.4 [a], [c]; see generally Matter of Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. v Nevins, 295 AD2d 887, 887 [4th Dept 2002]; Matter of Presbyterian Hosp. of City of N.Y. v State Div. of Human Rights, 241 AD2d 319, 320 [1st Dept 1997]).

Finally, we conclude that the ALJ did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioner's request to reopen the hearing. The evidence adduced provided the ALJ with a sufficient basis to determine that petitioner did not suffer an adverse employment action as a result of discrimination, and the additional evidence that petitioner sought to introduce was beyond the scope of the case (see 9 NYCRR 465.12 [f] [3], [13]; see generally Matter of Mario v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 200 AD3d 1591, 1592-1593 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 909 [2022]; Matter of McGuirk v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 139 AD3d 570, 571 [1st Dept 2016]).

Entered: June 30, 2023

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

 

Jul 5, 2023

Seeking to vacate an arbitrator's award on the ground that it was issued in excess of the arbitrator's power.

In this action seeking to vacate an arbitration award, the employer contended that the arbitrator had exceed his powers in adjudicating the grievance when he:

1. Determined the grievance to be arbitrable; and 

2. Concluded, among other things, that the grievant was entitled to the benefits claimed.

The Appellate Division opined that in the event a "reasonable relationship exists between the subject matter of the grievance and the general subject matter of the CBA," the matter is arbitrable", sustaining the arbitrator's decisions.



Matter of County of Onondaga (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc.)

2023 NY Slip Op 03599

Decided on June 30, 2023

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.



Decided on June 30, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, MONTOUR, AND OGDEN, JJ.


329 CA 22-00889

IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN COUNTY OF ONONDAGA, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, AND

and

CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC.,
ONONDAGA COUNTY LOCAL 834, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

DAREN J. RYLEWICZ, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., ALBANY (STEVEN M. KLEIN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

BOLANOS LOWE, PLLC, PITTSFORD (KYLE W. STURGESS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered May 12, 2022. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted in part the petition to vacate an arbitrator's award.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is denied in its entirety.

Memorandum: Petitioner, County of Onondaga, commenced this proceeding to vacate an arbitrator's award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) on the ground that it was issued in excess of the arbitrator's power. During the underlying arbitration, the arbitrator determined a grievance to be arbitrable and concluded, among other things, that the grievant was entitled to claim benefits under an applicable New York law for November 17-18, 2020. Supreme Court granted the petition in part, vacating that portion of the arbitrator's award with regard to November 17-18, 2020, on the ground that the arbitrator "erroneously" found the matter to be arbitrable and thus exceeded his authority in interpreting the application of statutory entitlements. Respondent, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Onondaga County Local 834, now appeals from the order to that extent, and we reverse the order insofar as appealed from and deny the petition in its entirety.

"[J]udicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited" (Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479 [2006], cert dismissed 548 US 940 [2006]). Generally, courts " 'may vacate an arbitration award only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power' " (Matter of Syracuse City Sch. Dist. [Gilbert], 192 AD3d 1643, 1644 [4th Dept 2021], quoting Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530, 534 [2010]).

We agree with respondent that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority when he determined the matter to be arbitrable. The parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) defines a grievance as a "claimed violation, misinterpretation or an inequitable application of a specific and express term of [the CBA]." Here, the grievance dealt with an alleged inequitable application of the grievant's leave accruals. We conclude that a reasonable relationship exists between the subject matter of the grievance and the general subject matter of the CBA and the matter is arbitrable (see Matter of Board of Educ. of Watertown City School Dist. [Watertown Educ. Assn.], 93 NY2d 132, 143 [1999]). Notably, the parties included a Conformity to Law provision in the CBA, whereby the CBA and its provisions "are subordinate to any present or future Federal or New York State laws and regulations" (emphasis added).

We conclude that the arbitrator's review of relevant state law did not exceed "a specifically enumerated limitation on [his] power" (Syracuse City Sch. Dist., 192 AD3d at 1644).

Entered: June 30, 2023

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

Jul 3, 2023

New York State Department of Civil Service memorandum and bulletin issued during the week ending June 30, 2023

The New York State Department of Civil Service has posted the items  listed below on the Internet at the URLs indicated in COLOR below:

1.  Transmittal Memorandum No. 49, 2024 Calendar of Legal Holidays and Days of Religious Significance:

    Text of Transmittal Memorandum No. 49 will be found at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/TM_49.cfm

    Transmittal Memorandum No. 49 in a version in PDF format is posted at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/TM49.pdf

To view previous Attendance and Leave bulletins issued by the Department of Civil Service, visit: https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/index.cfm

 

2. General Information Bulletin 23-03, Civil Service Exam Fee Waiver:

     Text of General Information Bulletin 23-03 will be found at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/Manuals/SPMM/GIBS/GIB23-03.cfm.

      General Information Bulletin 23-03 in a PDF format is posted at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/GIB23-03.pdf.

To view previous General Information Bulletins issued by the Department of Civil Service, visit: https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/gibs.cfm

 

Jul 1, 2023

The public policy of the State of New York for firefighters is that disciplinary procedures are terms and conditions of employment subject to mandatory negotiation under the Taylor Law

Matter of Local 32 Intl. Assn. of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, Utica Professional Firefighters Assn. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd.

2023 NY Slip Op 03383

Decided on June 22, 2023

Appellate Division, Third Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.



Decided and Entered: June 22, 2023


535052

In the Matter of Local 32 International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, Utica Professional Firefighters Association, Appellant,

v

New York State Public Employment Relations Board et al., Respondents.



Calendar Date:May 4, 2023
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ.

Blitman & King LLP, Syracuse (Nathaniel G. Lambright of counsel), for appellant.

New York State Public Employment Relations Board, Albany (Ellen M. Mitchell of counsel), for New York State Public Employment Relations Board, respondent.

William M. Borrill, Corporation Counsel, Utica (Joseph V. McBride of counsel), for City of Utica, respondent.

In June 2016, petitioner filed an improper practice charge with respondent Public Employment Relations Board (hereinafter PERB) alleging that respondent City of Utica, a second class city, violated multiple sections of Civil Service Law article 14 (hereinafter the Taylor Law) by unilaterally changing past practices related to disciplinary interrogations of City firefighters. Following administrative review, PERB concluded that it was constrained to follow Matter of City of Schenectady v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd. (30 NY3d 109 [2017]), in which the Court of Appeals held that police discipline was a prohibited subject of bargaining for cities covered by the Second Class Cities Law (id. at 115-116). In doing so, PERB rejected petitioner's argument that firefighters were differently situated from police officers and, thus, the policy considerations in Matter of City of Schenectady, and the line of cases upon which it relied, were inapposite. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, which respondents moved to dismiss. Supreme Court granted that motion, agreeing with PERB that the disciplinary provisions of the Second Class Cities Law apply with equal force to both police officers and firefighters. Petitioner appeals.

During the pendency of this appeal, the Legislature enacted the New York State Firefighter Bill of Rights Act (L 2022, ch 674), which amended both the Taylor Law and Civil Service Law § 75, addressing removal of and other disciplinary action against public employees. The Senate Introducer's memorandum in support of the bill recognized that "court decisions have noted that . . . several statutes contain[ ] provisions favoring the local control of police and fire discipline that would override the Taylor Law presumption of negotiability," and, against that backdrop, the Legislature saw it necessary to "declare it to be the public policy of the State of New York that[,] for firefighters, disciplinary procedures are terms and conditions of employment subject to mandatory negotiation under the Taylor Law" (Senate Introducer's Mem in Support of 2022 NY Senate Bill S8481, enacted as L 2022, ch 674). The act thus amends the aforementioned statutes accordingly (see Civil Service Law §§ 75 [2-a]; 201 [4]; 204-a [4]). Although, as the City aptly notes, the act expressly states that it applies to proceedings commenced on or after March 1, 2023 (see L 2022, ch 674, § 5), PERB asserts that this newly promulgated legislation directly impacts its analysis and has asked this Court to remit this matter to it for a new determination. Acknowledging these somewhat unusual circumstances, petitioner has agreed that remittal is appropriate. In light of the foregoing, we grant PERB's request and remit the matter to it for further proceedings.

Egan Jr., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, determination annulled, and matter remitted to respondent Public Employment Relations Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.

 

 

NYPPL Publisher Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com