Workers' Compensation Board ruled, among other things, that claimant for Workers' Compensastion had voluntarily removed himself from the labor market and was not entitled to postretirement wage loss benefits

Applicant for Workers' Compensation benefits continued to work on restricted duty as a union representative in an administrative capacity until he opted to take a normal service retirement effective May 14, 2020 claimed he had involuntary retired as a result of the back injuries he sustained in 2009. The Board rescinded the award of lost wages and replaced it with a finding of no compensable lost time.

The Appellate Division denied Applicant's challenge to the Board's decision. In affirming, the court explained "Generally, a claimant who voluntarily withdraws from the labor market by retiring is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits unless the claimant's disability caused or contributed to the retirement" and "Although the absence of evidence of medical advice to retire may be a relevant factor in determining whether a particular claimant's retirement constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, medical advice to retire is not ... an essential element for a finding that a claimant's compensable injury played a role in the decision to retire".

Decided and Entered:June 27, 2024

CV-23-1524

[*1]In the Matter of the Claim of John T. Carroll, Appellant,

v

Nassau County Police Department et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Calendar Date:June 5, 2024
Before:Pritzker, J.P., Lynch, Ceresia, Fisher and Mackey, JJ.

Fusco, Brandenstein & Rada, PC, Woodbury (Jesse A. Sigismonti of counsel), for appellant.

Vecchione, Vecchione, Connors & Cano, LLP, Garden City Park (Michael F. Vecchione of counsel), for Nassau County Police Department and another, respondents.

Fisher, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed April 5, 2023, which ruled, among other things, that claimant had voluntarily removed himself from the labor market and was not entitled to postretirement wage loss benefits.

In March 2009, claimant, a police officer and union representative, injured his back and left knee while making an arrest, and resultantly underwent a spinal surgery (laminectomy and discectomy) on May 4, 2010. He returned to work in 2011 on restricted administrative duty, and later that year resumed the full-time duties of a police officer until July 2019, when he was again put on restricted duty. Claimant continued to work on restricted duty as a union representative in an administrative capacity until he opted to take a normal service retirement effective May 14, 2020, and thereafter raised the issue of involuntary retirement as a result of the back injuries he sustained in 2009.

A hearing was held at which claimant testified, explaining his restricted light job duties and that he had retired involuntarily due to the ongoing and worsening back pain and symptoms that he experienced while performing those duties, notwithstanding the employer's accommodation of his back condition, and on the advice of his treating orthopedic surgeon. Claimant further testified that his position required sitting approximately five to six hours per day and worsened his symptoms, and that taking breaks or standing to alleviate his pain was not always feasible. The commanding officer of the medical administration office also testified regarding claimant's administrative duties, stating that he was permitted to stand and stretch to alleviate his symptoms and that there was no time limitation on how long he could remain on restricted duty status. Deposition testimony and medical records and reports were submitted in support of claimant's back injury. Specifically, claimant's treating orthopedic surgeon, who began treating claimant in February 2019, testified that claimant had a progressively worsening disability of 33.3% in February 2019 that, as of August 2020, left him 75% disabled. The orthopedist diagnosed claimant with multi-level spinal compression, lumbar stenosis, disc degeneration and radiculopathy, and further testified that retirement had been necessary because claimant's restricted job duties involved sitting and sedentary work, which were "very difficult" and provoked his back symptoms. Based on this, the orthopedist opined that claimant could only tolerate part-time sedentary work, he could not sit for full days and that he should not sit for more than one hour at a time. Claimant's pain management specialist examined him six or seven times between January and November 2020, and found — based upon these examinations, the treating orthopedist's disability calculation, an MRI report and claimant's complaints — that he had a mild/moderate disability of 33.3% and that his condition had stabilized, noting that he had never [*2]advised claimant to retire.

The employer and its workers' compensation carrier procured an independent medical examination of claimant that was performed eight months after his retirement in January 2021, by an orthopedic surgeon (hereinafter the carrier's consultant) who reviewed his medical records and submitted a report; the report recommended continuing physical therapy but did not offer an opinion regarding claimant's degree of disability, ability to perform his restricted job duties with accommodations at the time of his retirement or whether retirement was medically advised. The report recorded claimant's ongoing complaints of low back pain, pain radiating down his right leg and pain in his mid-back to the right buttocks and posterior thigh and lateral leg numbness and tingling, and included a diagnosis of right side sciatica and postoperative status. The carrier's consultant, who conceded that he had no recollection of the examination, later testified and, adopting the content of his report, opined that claimant had a moderate to marked disability, had limited range of motion with pain, had not reached maximum medical improvement and that he should continue physical therapy and avoid repetitive lifting and prolonged standing, walking and stair climbing.

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) found that although claimant had not been forced by the employer to retire and the employer had attempted to accommodate his condition, even his modified duties were too painful and, accordingly, he had involuntarily retired primarily due to his disability that resulted from the 2009 injury. The WCLJ held in abeyance an award for lost wages from claimant's May 14, 2020 retirement until December 7, 2020, pending further review of medical records, and made an award of continuing lost wage payments at a 50% temporary partial disability rate for the period of December 7, 2020 through December 30, 2022 (the day after the final hearing). On administrative appeal, the Workers' Compensation Board modified the WCLJ's decision, concluding that claimant's disability did not prevent him from performing his light duty assignment with accommodations, and that he had voluntarily retired. The Board rescinded the award of lost wages and replaced it with a finding of no compensable lost time. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. "Generally, a claimant who voluntarily withdraws from the labor market by retiring is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits unless the claimant's disability caused or contributed to the retirement" (Matter of Losquadro v Nassau County Police Dept., 225 AD3d 1083, 1084 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Digbasanis v Pelham Bay Donuts Inc., 224 AD3d 1047, 1048-1049 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Vankoevering v New York State Canal Corp., 211 AD3d 1301, 1302 [3d Dept 2022]). "Although the absence of evidence of medical advice to retire may be a relevant factor in determining whether a particular [*3]claimant's retirement constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, medical advice to retire is not . . . an essential element for a finding that a claimant's compensable injury played a role in the decision to retire" (Matter of Evans v Jewish Home & Hosp., 289 AD2d 795, 796 [3d Dept 2001] [internal citations omitted]), but there must "be some evidence that the claimant's disability caused or contributed to the retirement" (Matter of Vankoevering v New York State Canal Corp., 211 AD3d at 1302 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]). "Whether a retirement or withdrawal from the labor market is voluntary is a factual determination to be made by the Board" (Matter of Rivera v Joseph L. Balkan, Inc., 193 AD3d 1214, 1215 [3d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). "[T]he Board's determination of that issue will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence [and, to that end,] . . . as the sole arbiter of witness credibility, the Board has broad authority to resolve factual issues based on credibility of witnesses and draw any reasonable inference from the evidence in the record" (Matter of Saporito v Office of Ct. Admin., 217 AD3d 1031, 1032-1033 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

In finding that claimant had voluntarily retired, the Board credited the opinions of claimant's pain management specialist that he had a 33.3% disability and the carrier's consultant that he had a moderate to marked disability over that of his treating orthopedist that his disability level progressively increased to 75% around the time of his retirement and required that he retire, an assessment made without an awareness of the accommodations being made in his light duty assignment. The Board noted that claimant had been able to work full time as a police officer for years after his 2010 surgery and was able to tolerate the restricted duty assignment that began in 2019, in which he was permitted to stand, walk and stretch as needed without repercussions, finding no persuasive evidence that he was having difficulty performing those duties before he retired. Contrary to claimant's argument, the Board, not the WCLJ, "is the sole arbiter of witness credibility" and "has the exclusive province to resolve conflicting medical opinions and to evaluate medical evidence before it" and "was not bound by the WCLJ's determinations" (Matter of Ghaffour v New York State Black Car Operators, 224 AD3d 1021, 1023 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]). Although the WCLJ credited claimant's testimony and the treating orthopedist's finding that the light duty work was too painful and that retirement was necessary in concluding that he had involuntarily retired, the Board was entitled to draw different inferences and discount that conclusion based upon the other medical evidence and testimony and the orthopedist's concession that he was unaware that claimant was permitted [*4]to take breaks to move, stand and stretch as needed, which would alleviate his symptoms caused by prolonged periods of sitting.

We discern no error in the Board's conclusion that this case more closely resembles the facts in Employer: County of Nassau Civil Service II (2022 WL 18359761, 2022 NY Wrk Comp LEXIS 6972 [WCB No. G296 5754, Dec. 30, 2022]), than the facts in Employer: County of Nassau Civil Service I (2020 WL 6200143, 2020 NY Wrk Comp LEXIS 14471 [WCB No. G257 8586, Oct. 19, 2020]). This conclusion was based upon the Board's findings that claimant was able to perform his light duty assignment with accommodations at the time he retired, and that his treating orthopedist's opinion regarding his progressively worsening disability and inability to perform the light duty work was not credible as it was made without an understanding regarding his accommodations and conflicted with the credited opinions of his pain management specialist and the carrier's consultant and was not supported by the record. Notably, "this Court will not disturb a finding of the Board where it is supported by substantial evidence, even where[, as here,] a contrary conclusion of the WCLJ is also supported by substantial record evidence" (Matter of Ghaffour v New York State Black Car Operators, 224 AD3d at 1023-1024). Under the circumstances presented and deferring to the Board's credibility determinations, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant's work-related injuries did not cause or contribute to his decision to retire and, given that he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market, claimant was not entitled to an award of reduced earnings subsequent to the date of his retirement (see Matter of Losquadro v Nassau County Police Dept., 225 AD3d at 1085). In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision (see Matter of Farrulla v SUNY at Stony Brook, 193 AD3d 1206, 1208 [3d Dept 2021]).

Pritzker, J.P., Lynch, Ceresia and Mackey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

New York State Comptroller DiNapoli releases certain school district and municipal audits

 

On July 3, 2024, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued the following local government and school audits:

Ardsley Union Free School District – Financial Management (Westchester County)

The board and district officials did not effectively manage the district’s fund balance and reserves. As a result, the district levied more taxes than needed to fund operations. The board and district officials overestimated appropriations from 2017-18 through 2021-22 (excluding 2018-19) by an average of $4.1 million, totaling $16.5 million. In addition, the district appropriated fund balance at an annual average of $2.9 million from 2017-18 through 2021-22 while it had an operating surplus in each of those years averaging $1.1 million. As a result, the appropriated fund balance was not used to fund operations and taxpayers were taxed more than necessary.

Rye City School District – Payroll (Westchester County)

District officials did not budget for approximately $600,000 of incurred overtime, and generally recorded it as regular salaries instead of overtime. As a result, residents are not being made aware of what the district expects to incur in overtime costs and the budgets are not transparent. Auditors analyzed the overtime paid to 15 employees with the highest overtime charges for the audit period and reviewed all of their time records and payments totaling $428,220. Auditors found officials recorded $409,391 of that money as salaries, which precluded officials from monitoring overtime expenditures because they did not know how much overtime was being paid. The district also lacked overtime monitoring policies and procedures and paid six employees $2,097 in overtime wages without proper supporting documentation.

Half Hollow Hills Central School District – Information Technology (IT) Equipment Inventory Records (Suffolk County)

District officials did not always appropriately track, inventory and safeguard IT equipment and IT department staff did not maintain complete inventory records. As a result, district officials cannot assure taxpayers that all IT equipment is adequately accounted for and would be detected if lost, stolen or misused. Auditors selected 100 pieces of equipment (devices) costing $88,223 to confirm their location and that they were properly inventoried and determined that 23% of the equipment was not properly accounted for. Specifically, three IT devices, worth a total of $3,012 could not be located. Another 20 IT devices that cost $19,914 were not listed in the district’s accounting detail report.

Greater Southern Tier Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) – Capital Assets (Chemung County)

BOCES officials did not properly monitor and account for all capital assets and have not conducted periodic physical inventories in at least 10 years. As a result, officials lack assurance the capital asset records are complete and accurate, and that assets are protected from loss, theft, misuse and obsolescence. Auditors reviewed 50 assets with a combined purchase price totaling approximately $259,900 and determined that 10 assets worth a combined $68,600 had exceptions and eight of those assets, totaling approximately $65,400, did not have required asset tags, were not on the inventory asset list and/or had incorrect locations on the inventory list. In addition, a camcorder with a purchase price of $1,700 could not be located or accounted for and a telecommunications switch with a purchase price of $1,500 was still active on the inventory list but was disposed of in October 2018.

Town of Gorham – Budgeting (Ontario County)

The board did not develop and adopt realistic budgets, a financial plan or fund balance and reserve policies. As a result, the town maintained unreasonable fund balance levels and likely levied more taxes than necessary. From fiscal years 2020 through 2022, the town-wide (TW) general, town-outside-village (TOV) general, TOV highway, sewer and water funds combined generated a total of $1.6 million in operating surpluses. In 2021, sales tax revenues totaling $230,000 were inappropriately recorded in the TW funds instead of the TOV funds, given property taxes were levied in the TOV funds. In addition, an excessive $1.5 million of unrestricted fund balance was maintained in the TW general fund as of Dec. 31, 2022. Lastly, budget transfers were made at year end, rather than as necessary throughout the fiscal year, resulting in appropriation accounts being over expended.

Town of Gorham – Procurement (Ontario County)

Town officials did not always procure goods and services in accordance with town policy, statutory requirements and good business practices. As a result, there is an increased risk that the town paid more than necessary for goods and services or made purchases that were not for town purposes. For example, auditors reviewed 65 individual and aggregate purchases totaling $2.5 million and determined 16 purchases totaling $468,738 were not competitively bid. Officials also did not comply with purchasing policy requirements for 41 purchases totaling $1.4 million. Auditors reviewed all nine professional services vendors totaling $1.1 million and determined officials did not seek competition when procuring any of these vendors. Two of these vendors lacked written agreements detailing the services to be provided and their cost. Auditors also reviewed all 116 credit card purchases totaling $29,562 and determined 12 purchases totaling $3,726 did not have adequate supporting documentation to indicate they were appropriate town purchases.

Renaissance Academy Charter School of the Arts – Non-Payroll Disbursements (Monroe County)

School officials did not ensure that all disbursements were properly reviewed and approved, or adequately supported. Certain disbursements were made without knowing what was purchased or whether the disbursements were for appropriate school purposes. During the period reviewed, the school’s disbursements totaled $4.8 million and although a prior audit and other external audits noted school disbursements lacked adequate supporting documentation, sufficient corrective action was not taken, including adopting adequate written disbursements policies. Auditors found 62% of the non-credit card disbursements tested totaling $276,871 and 86% of the credit card charges tested totaling $43,439 lacked both an itemized invoice or receipt and a documented school purpose. In addition, the chief education officer (CEO) and chief operating officer have the ability to make purchases, prepare checks and modify or delete data in the financial software and the CEO signs checks. The lack of adequate controls increases the risk for disbursements to be made for non-school purposes and accounting records being altered without detection.

Farmingdale Union Free School District – Payroll (Nassau County)

District officials did not properly monitor, approve and control overtime. Officials also did not ensure all overtime payments were necessary and properly supported. As a result, there is a significant risk that employees may have been paid for unnecessary overtime work that could have been avoided with adequate planning. Auditors determined that the board and district officials did not establish adequate overtime controls or adopt written policies and procedures to ensure overtime was incurred only when necessary and unavoidable. They also did not ensure all overtime was preapproved and monitored. The district paid 20 employees $167,034 for nonemergency overtime work, including routine job duties and planned events, without written preapproval and did not budget for overtime separate from other payroll expenditures. As a result, district officials did not have adequate information to properly monitor the overtime budget and expenditures.

Village of Herkimer – Audit Follow Up (Herkimer County)

The purpose of this review was to assess the village’s progress in implementing recommendations in the audit report released in August 2019. Based on limited procedures, the village has demonstrated minimal progress implementing corrective action. Of the seven audit recommendations, one recommendation was partially implemented, and six recommendations were not implemented.

###

 

 

Administrative due process is satisfied if the court finds that the determination is supported by a rational basis, even if the court concludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by the agency

To annul a determination of a New York City Department of Education dispute resolution officer, made without a hearing, denying the extension of the petitioner's contract the petitioner must persuade the court that the dispute resolution officer's determination was arbitrary and capricious.

 

Edwards v New York City Dept. of Educ.

2024 NY Slip Op 03480

Decided on June 26, 2024

Appellate Division, Second 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 26, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
LARA J. GENOVESI
BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.

2022-01415
(Index No. 511176/20)

[*1]In the Matter of Raymond S. Edwards, etc., appellant,

v

New York City Department of Education, respondent.

Leonard W. Stewart, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Melanie T. West and Amanda Abata of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding, in effect, pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of a dispute resolution officer dated September 16, 2020, which upheld, without a hearing, the determination of the New York City Department of Education to deny a contract extension to the petitioner, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), dated December 10, 2021. The judgment, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding, in effect, pursuant to CPLR article 78 against the respondent, the New York City Department of Education (hereinafter the DOE), inter alia, to annul a determination of a dispute resolution officer of the DOE, made without a hearing, upholding the DOE's determination to deny a contract extension for one of the petitioner's universal pre-kindergarten facilities. In a judgment dated December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court concluded that the dispute resolution officer's determination was not arbitrary and capricious and, thereupon, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.

"In reviewing an administrative agency determination, [courts] must ascertain whether there is a rational basis for the action in question or whether it is arbitrary and capricious" (Matter of Gilman v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 99 NY2d 144, 149; see Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431). "An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts" (Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d at 431; see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231). "If the court finds that the determination is supported by a rational basis, it must sustain the determination even if the court concludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by the agency" (Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d at 431). Here, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the challenged determination was not arbitrary and capricious.

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, GENOVESI and WARHIT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Posted on the Internet as noted on July 3, 2024

 

	NEWS
	NYC employers must now inform workers of their labor rights - NBC New York NBC New York Since the beginning of July, employers in New York City must inform their workers about their rights in multiple languages, regardless of their ...
	New York Employment Legislation, Regulation Updates Reviewed The National Law Review New York City implemented a similar law, New York City's Freelance Isn't Free Act, on May 15, 2017. The Act defines a freelance worker broadly ...
	New York Freelance Isn't Free Act to Take Effect August 28, 2024 The National Law Review ... New York City ordinance enacted just a few years ago by the same name. Both laws establish protections for freelance workers that aim to ensure ...
	Giuliani is disbarred in New York as court finds he repeatedly lied about Trump's 2020 election loss ABC News - The Walt Disney Company Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, federal prosecutor and legal adviser to Donald Trump, has been disbarred in New York.
	New York State Requires Paid Lactation Breaks | Bond Schoeneck & King PLLC - JDSupra JD Supra Effective June 19, 2024, New York State Labor Law Section 206-c requires all private and public employers to provide 30 minutes of paid break time ...
	Rudy Giuliani disbarred in New York for spreading falsehoods about 2020 election CBS News Washington — Rudy Giuliani, who served as former President Donald Trump's personal attorney, was disbarred from practicing law in New York on ...
	Hunter Biden sues Fox News under New York's revenge porn law - NY1 NY1 Fox removed the mock trial series in question from its streaming platform in April after Biden's attorneys threatened the suit.
	The public gets a glimpse of lobbying in New York - WAMC WAMC New York could beef up the laws by limiting the size of campaign donations that lobbyists make; it could curtail fundraising during the ...
	New York State Department of Health Revises Proposed Hospital Cybersecurity Regulations JD Supra ... NYS Public Health Law. NYSDOH proposed the initial regulations in the ... law and managed by qualified cybersecurity personnel or a third-party service ...
	Supreme Court's 2024 Term Could Transform Labor and Employment Law Littler Mendelson P.C. ... law, all of them will affect labor ... Labor Standards has collected rulemaking authority under 14 different city ordinances. And in New York City ...

 

 

Seeking reimbursement of police training expenses from another jurisdiction

The City of New York sued the County of Nassau seeking reimbursement of police training expenses pursuant to General Municipal Law §72-c incurred on behalf of two police officers formerly employed by the New York City Police Department.

The Appellate Division held the City established its prima facie entitlement to an award of $88,689.96 in reimbursement costs by submitting an affidavit of the Director of the Management and Budget Analysis Section of the NYPD, which itemized the reimbursable amounts owed for each officer under General Municipal Law §72-c. Contrary to the County's contention, the City submitted sufficient evidence in support of its methods of calculation.

 

City of New York v County of Nassau

2024 NY Slip Op 03468

Decided on June 26, 2024

Appellate Division, Second 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 26, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
ROBERT J. MILLER
WILLIAM G. FORD
LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.

2022-00177
(Index No. 604244/14)

[*1]City of New York, respondent,

v

County of Nassau, appellant.

Thomas A. Adams, County Attorney, Mineola, NY (Robert F. Van der Waag, Samantha A. Goetz, and Ian Bergström of counsel), for appellant.

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Deborah A. Brenner and Sarah Paulson of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action for reimbursement of police training expenses pursuant to General Municipal Law § 72-c, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roy S. Mahon, J.), entered January 4, 2022. The order granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, City of New York, commenced this action against the defendant, County of Nassau, for reimbursement of police training expenses pursuant to General Municipal Law § 72-c incurred on behalf of two police officers formerly employed by the New York City Police Department (hereinafter the NYPD). According to the complaint, the officers attended and graduated from the NYPD police academy in 2012. In 2013, both officers resigned from the NYPD to work as police officers in the Nassau County Police Department. In an order entered January 4, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the City's motion for summary judgment on the complaint. The County appeals.

The City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the complaint seeking reimbursement of police training expenses for the two officers. General Municipal Law § 72-c provides in relevant part: "whenever a member of the police department of a municipal corporation has attended a police training school, the expense of which was borne by such municipal corporation, terminates employment with such municipal corporation and commences employment with any other municipal corporation or employer county sheriff, such employer municipal corporation or employer county sheriff shall reimburse the prior employer municipal corporation for such expenses . . . if such change in employment occurs within three years of such member's graduation from police training school." Here, the City established that the two officers successfully completed police training at the NYPD police academy, and that both officers left their employment with the NYPD and joined the Nassau County Police Department prior to completing three years of service with the NYPD.

In opposition, the County failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the County's contention, the NYPD police academy qualifies as a "police training school" within the meaning of General Municipal Law § 72-c because the statute's "words of ordinary import" should be construed "with their usual and commonly understood meaning" (Rosner v Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 96 NY2d 475, 479). Further, the statute does not require that police officers be issued a certificate of satisfactory completion of a police basic training program by the Municipal Police Training Council (hereinafter MPTC) (see Executive Law § 839), as provided for by General Municipal Law § 209-q(1)(a), in order to trigger entitlement to reimbursement under General Municipal Law § 72-c. Indeed, in order to transfer from the police department of another municipality to the Nassau County Police Department, a police officer who does not have an MPTC certificate may obtain a waiver by showing completion of equivalent police officer training. Thus, a waiver of the MPTC certification requirement of General Municipal Law § 209-q may be obtained for officers who received police training from the NYPD.

The City established its prima facie entitlement to an award of $88,689.96 in reimbursement costs by submitting an affidavit of the Director of the Management and Budget Analysis Section of the NYPD, which itemized the reimbursable amounts owed for each officer under General Municipal Law § 72-c. Contrary to the County's contention, the City submitted sufficient evidence in support of its methods of calculation.

In opposition, the County failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the County's contention, the statute provides for reimbursement for the "expense" borne by a municipal corporation for an officer's attendance at a police training school, and that "such expenses" include "salary, tuition, enrollment fees, books, and the cost of transportation to and from training school" (id.). As there is no indication that the Legislature intended to restrict the applicability of the statute to the listed expense categories, the court will not create such a limitation (see Matter of Theroux v Reilly, 1 NY3d 232, 240).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the City's motion for summary judgment on the complaint and determined that it was entitled to an award of $88,689.96 in reimbursement costs pursuant to General Municipal Law § 72-c.

DUFFY, J.P., MILLER, FORD and LOVE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

 

United States Supreme Court limits application of bribery law used in Chicago corruption cases

 A majority of the Justices found that a federal statute that bans bribery does not apply to “gratuities” paid to elected officials for past acts [Snyder v. United States, 71 F. 4th 555]. 

The Cornell University School of Law has posted the items listed below concerning this decision on the Internet: 

Snyder v. United States

71 F. 4th 555, reversed and remanded.

• Syllabus [Syllabus] [PDF]
• Opinion, Kavanaugh [Kavanaugh Opinion] [PDF]
• Concurrence, Gorsuch [Gorsuch Concurrence] [PDF]
• Dissent, Jackson [Jackson Dissent] [PDF]

Also reported on the Internet on June 26, 2024 by Governing HERE.