An individual's General Municipal Law §207-c benefits may be discontinued where the decision to do so is supported by substantial evidence

An individual's General Municipal Law §207-c benefits may be discontinued where the decision to do so is supported by substantial evidence

Matter of Cordway v Cayuga County, 2018 NY Slip Op 04873, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Petitioner, a deputy sheriff, commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination that terminated the disability benefits the deputy sheriff had been receiving pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c. The Hearing Officer issued a report recommending that Petitioner's continued receipt of benefits be terminated. Contrary to Petitioner's contention, the Appellate Division found "no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's determination terminating the benefits."

Although Petitioner presented evidence supporting his contention that his injuries and ailments were causally related to the work-related, the Hearing Officer was entitled to weigh the parties' conflicting medical evidence and to assess the credibility of the witnesses. Where the evidence is conflicting and there is room for a choice, a court may not weigh the evidence or reject the Hearing Officer's decision where his or her determination is supported by substantial evidence

Citing Matter of Park v Kapica, 8 NY3d 302, the court opined that an employer's "initial award of Section 207-c benefits does not require the continuation of such benefits inasmuch as "[t]he continued receipt of Section 207-c disability payments is not absolute."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_04873.htm

Audits and reports were issued by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

Audits and reports were issued by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending August 10, 2018

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

Click on text highlighted in color to access the full report

On August 9, 2018 the New York State Comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, announced the following audits and examinations had been issued.

Department of Health (DOH): Medicaid Claims Processing Activity April 1, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017 (2017-S-23)
Auditors identified approximately $10.2 million in improper Medicaid payments, including: $3.7 million in overpayments for claims that were billed with incorrect information pertaining to other health insurance coverage that recipients had; $3.1 million in overpayments for claims involving Medicare coverage that were incorrectly processed; and $1.3 million in overpayments for improper newborn birth claims. About $4.5 million of the overpayments were recovered by the end of audit fieldwork. Auditors also identified providers in the Medicaid program who were charged with or found guilty of crimes that violated health care programs’ laws or regulations. DOH terminated 42 of 51 providers identified.
       
Department of Health (DOH): Examination of Travel Expenses (2015-BSE1-04B)
In an earlier report, auditors found DOH improperly designated an employee’s official station in calendar years 2013 and 2014, costing the state more than $38,000 in unnecessary travel expenses. After further examination, auditors found DOH paid $22,651.32, $26,556.12 and $6,007.79 in travel expenses for calendar years 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively, for the employee to commute between his residence and his main work location. DOH could have avoided these costs if officials had properly designated the employee’s main work location as his official station.

Workers' Compensation Board: Annual Audit
The board processed claims totaling nearly $720 million for four sole custody funds in 2017 – the Uninsured Employers Fund, the Special Fund for Disability Benefits, the Second Injury Fund and the Fund for Reopened Cases.  Board staff enter claims data for all special funds claims into the Board’s automated payment system, where the claims are subjected to various system edits and validation checks, approved by the Board and submitted to the Comptroller’s Office for approval prior to payment. Auditors halted inappropriate claims totaling nearly $520,000 that the board approved. 

Brewster-Southeast Joint Fire District – Recordkeeping and Procurement (Putnam County)
The treasurer’s accounting records were not accurate as of Dec. 31, 2017. Cash accounts were incorrectly recorded, the operating bank account balance was understated by more than $377,000 and the capital reserve balance was overstated by $200,790. Also, district officials did not always solicit competition when procuring professional services.

Village of Deposit – Disbursements and Real Property Tax Enforcement (Delaware County)
The board did not ensure all disbursements were approved before payment or for proper purposes. In addition, auditors found the village began to effectively enforce the collection of delinquent real property taxes in March 2016, but $172,900 remains outstanding as of Feb. 28, 2018.

Multiple Dwelling Property Inspections (2018MS-01)
Auditors found all six local governments that were reviewed had properties that had never been inspected. Overall, 59 percent of the preventative maintenance inspections and 52 percent of the fire safety inspections were not performed. The cities of White Plains, Schenectady and Lackawanna had limited or non-existent multiple dwelling inspection programs and the city of Utica did not have a feasible program. Although the town of Greece and the village of Hempstead have developed more effective inspection programs, their programs also have opportunities for improvement.

Orleans County Soil and Water Conservation District – Claims Audit (2018M-105)
Auditors examined 72 claims totaling approximately $524,000 paid during the audit period and determined that all of the claims were for appropriate district purposes and adequately supported. The board, however, has not adopted a cash disbursement policy.

City of Yonkers - Fiscal Agent Act Compliance (Westchester County)
The city’s 2018-19 budget relies on nonrecurring revenue of $59.2 million to balance its budget. Police overtime costs could potentially be over budget by as much as $2.5 million and firefighting overtime costs could be over budget by as much as $949,000. The city plans to borrow up to $15 million for tax certiorari settlements and to issue debt of up to $9.8 million for water fund improvements.

Find out how your government money is spent at Open Book New York. Track municipal spending, the state's 150,000 contracts, billions in state payments and public authority data. 

 

Layoff of seasonal employees constituted a termination of employment for the purposes of Public Authorities Law §2629(2)(a)

Layoff of seasonal employees constituted a termination of employment for the purposes of Public Authorities Law §2629(2)(a)

Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Olympic Regional Dev. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 04998, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Civil Service Employees Association [CSEA] challenged the Olympic Regional Development Authority [ORDA] determination that certain its employees who had been laid off were no longer members of their previous collective bargaining unit upon their reinstatement. Supreme Court granted CSEA's application, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, annulling ORDA's action. Supreme Court found that CSEA was "entitled to a declaration that the layoff of seasonal employees [did] not constitute a termination or cessation of their employment resulting in a vacancy for purposes of Public Authorities Law §2629(2)(a)" and granted CSEA's petition, annulling ORDA's determination. ORDA appealed the Supreme Court's decision.

In 2012, the management of the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center was transferred from the Department of Environmental Conservation [DEC] to ORDA, a public benefit corporation.* Pursuant to Public Authorities Law §2629(2)(a), employees then working at Belleayre Mountain, who had been DEC employees and members of CSEA's Operating Services Collective Bargaining Unit [OSU], became employees of ORDA.

In March 2016, ORDA laid off three seasonal employees at Belleayre Mountain who were in OSU. Upon rehiring these employees some two months later to the same positions each had previously held, ORDA determined that each would be placed in ORDA's collective bargaining unit rather than OSU. This resulted in the three seasonal employees experiencing a "significant adverse changes to their benefits" and CSEA brought this action against ORDA contending that ORDA's action was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of §2629(2)(a).

The Appellate Division noted that, as pertinent here, Public Authorities Law §2629(2)(a):

1. Provides that employees affected by the transfer "shall retain their respective civil service classifications, status, salary, wages and negotiating unit, if any...."; and

2.  §2629(2)(a) further provided that "once the employment of any transferred employee ... is terminated or otherwise ceases, by any means, any individual hired to fill such vacancy shall not be placed in the same negotiating unit of the former incumbent but rather shall be placed in [ORDA's] negotiating unit."

ORDA contend that §2629(2)(a) the unambiguous results in the employment of a seasonal employee "terminate[s] or otherwise ceases" when he or she is laid off. Accordingly, ORDA argued, "such an employee may not return to his or her former negotiating unit in the event that he or she is subsequently rehired."

Noting that ORDA's determination was made without a hearing, the Appellate Division said that its review is limited to determining whether ORDA decision was "'arbitrary and capricious, irrational, affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion." Further, said the court, "We accord no deference to ORDA's statutory interpretation," as the questions raised on appeal depend only upon the "accurate apprehension of legislative intent."

This appeal, said the Appellate Division turns on the meaning of the terms "terminated" and "ceases" within the context of §2629(2)(a) and as neither word is defined in the Public Authorities Law and both are words "of ordinary import," the court said it would interpret them in a manner consistent with "their usual and commonly understood meaning." In the words of the Appellate Division, "terminate" is defined as "to bring to an end," "to discontinue the employment of" or "to form the conclusion of," citing the "Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary."

Rejecting CSEA's contention that a layoff is inconsistent with these definitions and merely constitutes a temporary interruption in a career, the Appellate Division explained that "in light of the express statutory provision that an employee whose employment 'is terminated or otherwise ceases, by any mean'" may not return to his or her prior collective bargaining unit upon subsequent rehire" and interpreting §2629(2)(a) as urged by CSEA "would render the phrase 'by any means' superfluous."

The court also rejected CSEA claim that §2629(2)(a) applies only to new employees, opining that the statute states that it is applicable to "any individual" and makes no distinction between employees who are new hires and employees who may have previously worked at Belleayre Mountain.

On one last point, CSEA's contention that the court should adopt its interpretation of §2629 on the basis that it is a remedial statute, the Appellate Division said that "[E]ven a remedial statute must be given a meaning consistent with the words chosen by the Legislature," and courts must "give effect not only to the remedy, but also to the words that delimit the remedy," commenting that CSEA's "interpretation of §2629 could result in the unintended adverse effect of discouraging the rehiring of seasonal employees after layoffs."

Finding that the plain language of §2629(2)(a) barred ORDA from permitting seasonal employees who were laid off and subsequently rehired to remain in OSU, the Appellate Division ruled that CSEA's "petition/complaint should have been dismissed."

* §45 of the Civil Service Law addresses the status of the employees of a private institution or enterprise upon its acquisition by governmental entity for the purpose of operating the private institution or enterprise as a public function.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_04998.htm

Delegating the authority to make a final disciplinary decision and the determination of the penalty to be imposed to another

Delegating the authority to make a final disciplinary decision and the determination of the penalty to be imposed to another

Matter of Stukes v City of White Plains, 2018 NY Slip Op 05474, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Executive Director of the Commission [Director] initiated disciplinary charges against his subordinate, an Assistant Director [Assistant] alleging that Assistant had violated policies prohibiting workplace violence following the Assistant's having had an altercation with Director at the workplace. After a hearing before a hearing officer, the hearing officer found Assistant guilty of  "13 of the factual specifications alleged in the charges" served on Assistant and recommended termination of Assistant from his employment with the Commission.

Director disqualified himself from reviewing the hearing officer's recommendations and making a final determination in consideration of the fact that he had preferred the charges against Assistant and designated the Chair of the Commission [Chair] to act in his stead. The Chair adopted the findings of the hearing officer and imposed the recommended penalty of termination of Assistant's employment.

Subsequently Assistant initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the Chair's determination, contending that Chair "was not a duly qualified individual to whom [Director] could properly delegate the power to review the hearing officer's recommendations and make a final determination." Supreme Court found the delegation of the authority to make the challenged decisions  from Director to Chair to be proper, granted the City of White Plain's motion to dismiss Assistant's petition and dismissed the proceeding. Assistant appealed.

The Appellate Division commenced its review of Assistant's appeal by observing that "Civil Service Law §75(2) provides that where, as here, an officer having the power to remove an employee who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings designates someone else to conduct a hearing, the matter shall be referred back to that officer or body for review and decision."

However, said the Appellate Division, although as a general rule the authority to make the final determination as to the charged employee's status may not be delegated, "courts have recognized that the statutory command must yield to an employee's right to a fair and impartial hearing when such an official is personally involved in the proceedings by preferring the charges at issue and testifying at the hearing, or otherwise involving himself or herself extensively in the proceedings."

In the words of the court, "In such circumstances, such an official acts improperly when he or she also renders the final determination." Citing Matter of McComb v Reasoner, 29 AD3d 795, the Appellate Division noted that the Court of Appeals has interpreted Civil Service Law §72(2)  to "require[ ] that the power to discipline be delegated, if necessary, within the governmental department's chain of command" and that the Court of Appeals has further interpreted Civil Service Law §72(2) to:

1. require that the power to discipline be delegated, if necessary, within the governmental department's chain of command (see Matter of Gomez v Stout, 13 NY3d 182); and

2. whether a particular delegation will fall within the affected department's chain of command, and, hence, is permissible appears to turn upon whether the body or official to whom review power is delegated possesses either supervisory authority over the employee at issue or administrative responsibility over the affected department and its personnel" (see Matter of Zlotnick v City of Saratoga Springs, 122 AD3d 1210).

Giving Assistant "the benefit of every favorable inference," the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court's determination that the Chair's position with the Commission was within the affected department's chain of command and, thus, the delegation of authority from Director to the Chair was proper.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_05474.htm

Removing a school official for an alleged unauthorized disclosure of confidential information

Removing a school official for an alleged unauthorized disclosure of confidential information

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision of the Commissioner No. 17,422

This appeal to the Commissioner, among other issues, concerned allegations that confidential information was disclosed and that the alleged wrongdoers should be removed from office.

With respect to the application to the Commissioner seeking the removal of a board member from the School Board "for impermissibly disclosing confidential notes," the Commissioner observed that a member of the board of education or a school officer may be removed from office pursuant to Education Law §306 when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the board member or school officer 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 Commissioner of Education.

Further, explained the Commissioner, "[t]o be considered willful, the board member’s actions must have been intentional and with a wrongful purpose" and   in an appeal or removal application to the Commissioner, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief.

School board members, as public officers, take an oath of office to uphold the law and faithfully discharge their duties and, among other things, are responsible for educational standards, budget matters, management issues, and health and safety. In carrying out their duties, school board members individually "have a fiduciary obligation to act constructively to achieve the best possible governance of the school district.

The Commissioner said that General Municipal Law §805-a(1)(b) specifically provides that no municipal officer or employee, including a school board member, shall “disclose confidential information acquired by him [or her] in the course of his [or her] official duties or use such information to further his [or her] personal interests” and within the public school system, the term “confidential,” means “[i]nformation that is meant to be kept secret.”

As to defining the meaning of the word "confidential," it is the "sole province of the Commissioner of Education to define the meaning of the word 'confidential' within the public school system and ensure its uniform application in this context."* Further, said the Commissioner, "[i]t is well-settled that a board member’s disclosure of confidential information which violates General Municipal Law §805-a(1)(b) may constitute grounds for a board member’s removal from office pursuant to Education Law §306.

Jessica Lovinsky and Phee Simpson [Petitioners] in this appeal claim that a board member disclosed “unredacted” notes to a newspaper reporter and buttress their claim with an email from the reporter to counsel for Simpson in which the reporter states that she is “writing an article on the Poughkeepsie district’s graduation investigation and subsequent appeal,” and that, in the article, she planned to “cit[e] records that relate[d] to Phee Simpson. The email also purported to include three attachments that Petitioners have attached, contending that they are copies of these three attachments.

The School District's answer to Petitioners' appeal to the Commissioner denied Petitioners' contentions. 

The Commissioner ruled that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proving that the School Board, as a body, or any individual school board member was responsible for disclosing the documents in question to the reporter or to anyone else. 

The Commissioner explained that the first element of a claimed disclosure of confidential information is disclosure, and a petitioner must prove that the alleged actor or actors did, in fact, disclosed allegedly confidential information. Here, however, said the Commissioner,  "Petitioners have wholly failed to meet this showing, providing no facts or assertions suggesting that any respondent provided the [newspaper reporter] with the allegedly confidential information."

Accordingly, the Commissioner dismissed Petitioners' application seeking the removal of the board member.

* N.B. In 2005 State Education Department Counsel and Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs notified school officials, including school board members, and school attorneys of the Commissioner's decision in Application of Nett and Raby (45 Ed Dept Rep 259, Decision No. 15,315)] that the Commissioner’s views with respect to the term "confidential" differed from the interpretation of the term “confidential” offered by New York State’s Committee on Open Government.

The Commissioner's decision is posted on the Internet at:

 http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume57/d17422

The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the relitigation of a legal or factual issue that was previously decided

The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the relitigation of a legal or factual issue that was previously decided

Washington v NYC Department of Education, USCA, 2nd Circuit, 17-3776-cv

In Grieve v Tamerin, 269 F.3d 149, the Circuit Court of Appeals said that the doctrine of collateral estoppel, also termed issue preclusion, bars re-litigation of a legal or factual issue that was previously decided where:

(1) the issues in both proceedings are identical,

(2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and actually decided,

 (3) there was [a] full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, and

(4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits.”

Further, the opinion continues, “New York courts will give administrative determinations preclusive effect if made in a quasijudicial capacity and with a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue,” citing Burkybile v. Bd. of Educ. of Hastings-On-Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist., 411 F.3d 306.

In this action Janet Washington [Plaintiff] asserted that §3020-a hearings do not result in the sort of final judgment that can give rise to collateral estoppel in federal court. The Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, explaining that "it is well-settled that a “[S]ection 3020-a hearing is an administrative adjudication that must be given preclusive effect” when the elements of collateral estoppel are satisfied."

The Circuit Court ruled that Plaintiff's §3020-a hearing satisfies the elements of collateral estoppel and has preclusive effect as the issue of alleged unlawful discrimination was actually litigated and decided, and the arguments raised in the §3020-a hearing were identical to those briefed for the discrimination claim on appeal. Further, said the court,  Plaintiff acknowledges that the hearing officer "ruled decisively and specifically on whether [Plaintiff] suffered disability discrimination after considering the arguments from each side," concluding that Plaintiff's “evidence of actual animus is weak” and that “just cause exists for the termination of [Plaintiff’s] employment”.

In the words of the court, "[t]he Section 3020-a hearing also afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of discrimination. Plaintiff was permitted to request the production of material, call and cross-examine witnesses, and present relevant evidence...." The court acknowledged that Plaintiff had challenged certain of the arbitrator’s evidentiary decisions, but opined that "the proceeding is not rendered unfair or incomplete because some evidentiary rulings were unfavorable. "

Holding that the district court correctly concluded that the Plaintiff’s discrimination claims were collaterally estopped by the factual findings of her §3020-a hearing, the Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's ruling.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/112119e1-395f-4de2-89fe-3ac841261b89/1/doc/17-3776_so%20(2).pdf#page=3&zoom=auto,-146,394

Executive Order of the Governor protecting the personal privacy of public sector workers

Executive Order of the Governor protecting the personal privacy of public sector workers

Executive Order No. 183  [8 EO 183]

WHEREAS, the labor movement was born in New York State more than a century ago, when, in the wake of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire New York became the first state to enact laws protecting workers; and

WHEREAS, the labor movement continues to thrive in New York, which today boasts the highest rate of union membership in the country – more than double the national rate;

WHEREAS, as the voice of working people, labor built the middle class and advanced the great progressive achievements that we take for granted today – victories such as the Social Security Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act establishing the 40-hour work week, set ting a minimum wage and prohibiting child labor, the Equal Pay Act banning gender wage discrimination, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act; and

WHEREAS, across New York State and this country, workers’ personal information such as their home addresses and cell phone numbers, are being used to attack, harass, and intimidate them; and

WHEREAS, although today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court in Janus v AFSCME attempts to undermine worker safety and privacy, New York State will not subject public sector workers to the abuse of their personal information as part of a campaign to harass and intimidate workers for any reason, including engaging in union activities or looking to unionize.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor of the State of New York, by, virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State of New York, do hereby order as follows:

A. Definitions

‘‘State entity’’ shall mean (i) all agencies and department s over which the Governor has executive authority, and (ii) all public benefit corporations, public authorities, boards, and commissions, for which the Governor appoints the Chair, the Chief Executive, or the majority of Board members, except for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

B. Responsibilities of State Entities

No State entity, including any of its officers or employees, shall disclose: (a) the home address(es), personal telephone number(s), personal cell phone number(s), personal e-mail address(es) of a public employee, as the term ‘‘public employee’’ is defined in Article 14 of the Civil Service Law, except (i) to an employee organization that, in accordance with Article 14 of the Civil Service Law, is the certified or recognized bargaining representative of a unit of public employees; (ii) to a bona fide employee organization that, in accordance with Article 14 of the Civil Service Law, is legitimately seeking to be certified or recognized as bargaining representative of a unit of public employees solely for purposes of aiding such employee organization in obtaining certification or recognition; or (iii) to the extent compelled to do so by lawful service of process, subpoena, court order, or as otherwise required by law. 

This order shall not apply to work-related, publicly available information such as title, salary, and dates of employment.

(L.S.)

GIVEN under my hand and the Privy Seal of

the State in the City of Albany this twenty-

seventh day of June in the year two thousand

eighteen.

BY THE GOVERNOR

/S/ Andrew M. Cuomo

/s/ Melissa DeRosa

Secretary to the Governo

Executive Order of the Governor protecting the personal privacy of public sector workers

Executive Order of the Governor protecting the personal privacy of public sector workers

Executive Order No. 183  [8 EO 183]

WHEREAS, the labor movement was born in New York State more than a century ago, when, in the wake of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire New York became the first state to enact laws protecting workers; and

WHEREAS, the labor movement continues to thrive in New York, which today boasts the highest rate of union membership in the country – more than double the national rate;

WHEREAS, as the voice of working people, labor built the middle class and advanced the great progressive achievements that we take for granted today – victories such as the Social Security Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act establishing the 40-hour work week, set ting a minimum wage and prohibiting child labor, the Equal Pay Act banning gender wage discrimination, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act; and

WHEREAS, across New York State and this country, workers’ personal information such as their home addresses and cell phone numbers, are being used to attack, harass, and intimidate them; and

WHEREAS, although today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court in Janus v AFSCME attempts to undermine worker safety and privacy, New York State will not subject public sector workers to the abuse of their personal information as part of a campaign to harass and intimidate workers for any reason, including engaging in union activities or looking to unionize.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor of the State of New York, by, virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State of New York, do hereby order as follows:

A. Definitions

‘‘State entity’’ shall mean (i) all agencies and department s over which the Governor has executive authority, and (ii) all public benefit corporations, public authorities, boards, and commissions, for which the Governor appoints the Chair, the Chief Executive, or the majority of Board members, except for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

B. Responsibilities of State Entities

No State entity, including any of its officers or employees, shall disclose: (a) the home address(es), personal telephone number(s), personal cell phone number(s), personal e-mail address(es) of a public employee, as the term ‘‘public employee’’ is defined in Article 14 of the Civil Service Law, except (i) to an employee organization that, in accordance with Article 14 of the Civil Service Law, is the certified or recognized bargaining representative of a unit of public employees; (ii) to a bona fide employee organization that, in accordance with Article 14 of the Civil Service Law, is legitimately seeking to be certified or recognized as bargaining representative of a unit of public employees solely for purposes of aiding such employee organization in obtaining certification or recognition; or (iii) to the extent compelled to do so by lawful service of process, subpoena, court order, or as otherwise required by law. 

This order shall not apply to work-related, publicly available information such as title, salary, and dates of employment.

(L.S.)

GIVEN under my hand and the Privy Seal of

the State in the City of Albany this twenty-

seventh day of June in the year two thousand

eighteen.

BY THE GOVERNOR

/S/ Andrew M. Cuomo

/s/ Melissa DeRosa

Secretary to the Governo

Claims of absolute privilege and qualified privilege as a defense in lawsuits alleging defamation

Claims of absolute privilege and qualified privilege as a defense in lawsuits alleging defamation

Stega v New York Downtown Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04687, Court of Appeals

Immunity as a defense in lawsuits alleging the plaintiff was defamed by the respondent are well established. In Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, the Court of Appeals noted that the public interest is served by shielding certain communications, though possibly defamatory, from litigation, rather than risk stifling them altogether. The court explained that free speech or the discharge of governmental responsibility "sometimes outweighs the individual's underlying right to a good reputation, the individual's right may have to yield to a privilege granted the speaker barring recovery of damages for the defamatory statements."

Absolute privilege entirely immunizes an individual from liability in a defamation action, regardless of the declarant's motives and is generally reserved for communications made by "individuals participating in a public function, such as judicial, legislative, or executive proceedings."

In contrast, a qualified or conditional privilege may protect a defendant being sued for defamation in situations where "it is fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs, in a matter where his [or her] interest is concerned."

However, statements made with "spite or ill will" or reckless disregard of whether they were false or not are not protected by this form of conditional privilege if the plaintiff meets his or her burden of proof by showing malice on the part of the defendant in making the statement.

In the words of the Stega court, "Whether allegedly defamatory statements are subject to an absolute or a qualified privilege 'depend[s] on the occasion and the position or status of the speaker' [and] a complex assessment that must take into account the specific character of the proceeding in which the communication is made [and as a matter of policy] the courts confine absolute privilege to a very few situations."

Those limits were the subject of the primary dispute before the Court of Appeals in this action.

Supreme Court had granted the defendants' motion to dismiss certain aspects of plaintiff's complaint but had permitted the plaintiff's defamation claim against certain defendants to survive, reasoning that the statements at issue were not shielded by an absolute privilege, because the investigation in which they had been made "had none of the indicia of a quasi-judicial proceeding, and in particular lacked safeguards such as an adversarial procedure or a determination subject to review."

Supreme Court also commented that plaintiff was not a "participant[] in the investigation, which was not an adversarial process; nor could [she] challenge the statements made about [her]. That it was an official governmental investigation conducted by a regulatory agency does not by itself make it a quasi-judicial function."

As to whether the statements were instead subject to a qualified or conditional privilege, Supreme Court declared that issue "premature on a motion to dismiss."

Defendants appealed the Supreme Court's ruling. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's determination but granted plaintiff's leave to appeal, "certifying the question whether its order was properly made."

The Court of Appeals observed that its decision in Rosenberg v Metlife, Inc. (8 NY3d 359, does not shield statements made in an administrative proceeding that allegedly defame a person who has no recourse to challenge the accusations. In the words of the court, "The absolute privilege against defamation applied to communications in certain administrative proceedings is not a license to destroy a person's character by means of false, defamatory statements."

The Appellate Division was reversed, with costs, the defendants' CPLR §3211 motion seeking to dismiss the claim as against them, denied, and the certified question "answered in the negative."

It appears that the matter will be remanded to Supreme Court to consider whether defendants' statements are protected by a "qualified or conditional privilege."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_04687.htm

Removing a school official for an alleged unauthorized disclosure of confidential information

Removing a school official for an alleged unauthorized disclosure of confidential information

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision of the Commissioner No. 17,422

This appeal to the Commissioner, among other issues, concerned allegations that confidential information was disclosed and that the alleged wrongdoers should be removed from office.

With respect to the application to the Commissioner seeking the removal of a board member from the School Board "for impermissibly disclosing confidential notes," the Commissioner observed that a member of the board of education or a school officer may be removed from office pursuant to Education Law §306 when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the board member or school officer 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 Commissioner of Education.

Further, explained the Commissioner, "[t]o be considered willful, the board member’s actions must have been intentional and with a wrongful purpose" and   in an appeal or removal application to the Commissioner, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief.

School board members, as public officers, take an oath of office to uphold the law and faithfully discharge their duties and, among other things, are responsible for educational standards, budget matters, management issues, and health and safety. In carrying out their duties, school board members individually "have a fiduciary obligation to act constructively to achieve the best possible governance of the school district.

The Commissioner said that General Municipal Law §805-a(1)(b) specifically provides that no municipal officer or employee, including a school board member, shall “disclose confidential information acquired by him [or her] in the course of his [or her] official duties or use such information to further his [or her] personal interests” and within the public school system, the term “confidential,” means “[i]nformation that is meant to be kept secret.”

As to defining the meaning of the word "confidential," it is the "sole province of the Commissioner of Education to define the meaning of the word 'confidential' within the public school system and ensure its uniform application in this context."* Further, said the Commissioner, "[i]t is well-settled that a board member’s disclosure of confidential information which violates General Municipal Law §805-a(1)(b) may constitute grounds for a board member’s removal from office pursuant to Education Law §306.

Jessica Lovinsky and Phee Simpson [Petitioners] in this appeal claim that a board member disclosed “unredacted” notes to a newspaper reporter and buttress their claim with an email from the reporter to counsel for Simpson in which the reporter states that she is “writing an article on the Poughkeepsie district’s graduation investigation and subsequent appeal,” and that, in the article, she planned to “cit[e] records that relate[d] to Phee Simpson. The email also purported to include three attachments that Petitioners have attached, contending that they are copies of these three attachments.

The School District's answer to Petitioners' appeal to the Commissioner denied Petitioners' contentions. 

The Commissioner ruled that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proving that the School Board, as a body, or any individual school board member was responsible for disclosing the documents in question to the reporter or to anyone else. 

The Commissioner explained that the first element of a claimed disclosure of confidential information is disclosure, and a petitioner must prove that the alleged actor or actors did, in fact, disclosed allegedly confidential information. Here, however, said the Commissioner,  "Petitioners have wholly failed to meet this showing, providing no facts or assertions suggesting that any respondent provided the [newspaper reporter] with the allegedly confidential information."

Accordingly, the Commissioner dismissed Petitioners' application seeking the removal of the board member.

* N.B. In 2005 State Education Department Counsel and Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs notified school officials, including school board members, and school attorneys of the Commissioner's decision in Application of Nett and Raby (45 Ed Dept Rep 259, Decision No. 15,315)] that the Commissioner’s views with respect to the term "confidential" differed from the interpretation of the term “confidential” offered by New York State’s Committee on Open Government.

The Commissioner's decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume57/d17422

Employee exercising a right to obtain his or her own attorney to prosecute a grievance divests the employee organization's attorney of standing in the matter with respect to the grievant

Employee exercising a right to obtain his or her own attorney to prosecute a grievance divests the employee organization's attorney of standing in the matter with respect to the grievant

Matter of City of Syracuse (Lee), 2018 NY Slip Op 05077, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

This decision explores a number of unusual circumstances and events impacting on efforts to confirm an arbitration award, including:

1. a policy negotiated by the employer and the employee organization permitting an aggrieved member, in lieu of the employee organization, to submit certain issues to arbitration;

2. a Supreme Court's authority to, sua sponte, vacate its prior order and judgment confirming an arbitration award  and directing further arbitration; and

3. the lack of Supreme Court having "personal jurisdiction" of the grievant with respect to the employer's efforts to confirm an arbitration award in its favor.

A dispute between the City and the Syracuse Police Benevolent Association [SPBA]  concerning the General Municipal Law §207-c benefits received by Katherine Lee [Lee], a former City police officer who was injured in the line of duty. Although Lee was directed to return to work she refused and her §207-c benefits were discontinued. Lee  challenged the directive given to her pursuant to the "General Municipal Law §207-c Policy" [Policy] negotiated by the City and SPBA.

The Policy negotiated by the City and SPBA provided that an officer "shall not be required to return to work and shall continue to receive his or her prior benefits during the review process but, '[i]n the event that the Chief's determination is sustained, the Officer must reimburse the City for the value of benefits received during the pendancy [sic] of the review process.'" Lee demanded the City's action discontinuing her §207-c benefits be submitted to arbitration.*

Arbitrator Michael S. Lewandowski ruled that SPBA "failed to prove that the City acted arbitrarily [or] capriciously or that the City's determination was affected by an error of law when it determined to discontinue [Lee's] 207-c benefits." Subsequently a second arbitration was held concerning the interpretation of the   "value of benefits" subject to reimbursement to the City under the Policy, and Arbitrator Thomas N. Rinaldo ruled in the City's favor, holding that "wages are included in the 'value of benefits' for purposes of reimbursement under the Policy." In response to the City's request that Arbitrator Lewandowski to direct Lee to reimburse the City in the amount of $71,436.44, Lewandowski responded that the City was "free to seek reimbursement of wages . . . by whatever means it finds available to it." Lewandowski also declined the City's request to make a supplemental award providing for such reimbursement.

Although Supreme Court denied the City's motion to resettle the prior order and judgment, if concluded that it had inherent authority to vacate the order and judgment in the interest of justice, and it held the order and judgment in abeyance pending a decision by Lewandowski on the amount that the City is entitled to recoup from Lee.

The Appellate Division found that Supreme Court erred in denying Lee's cross motion to dismiss the City's petition as Lee had established that Supreme Court failed to acquire personal jurisdiction over her in the proceeding to confirm the arbitration award by Lewandowski because the City never properly served her.

Nor,  said the Appellate Division, did Supreme Court acquire personal jurisdiction over Lee by the unauthorized appearance of the Union's attorney "on behalf of Katherine Lee" in the course of the proceedings, explaining that "there is no evidence that Lee expressly or implicitly authorized the Union's attorney to represent her at any stage of the proceedings."

In concluding that the appearance of the Union's attorney did not confer jurisdiction over Lee, the Appellate Division acknowledges the general rule that "an employee has no individual right to enforce a contract between the employee's employer and union." 

However, noted the court, there are exceptions to that rule, and one of those exceptions applies in the circumstances herein inasmuch as "the contract provides otherwise." Specifically, the Policy explicitly provides Union members with the rights "to compel a review of the Chief's determination" and to have counsel or another representative "at any stage of the procedure."

In the words of the Appellate Division, "Lee availed herself of those rights from the outset of the arbitration and, to the extent that the Union's attorney acted on Lee's behalf during that part of the proceeding that was before arbitrator Rinaldo, that attorney was not the 'representative of . . . [Lee's] choosing' contemplated by the Policy. In any event, while the Union represented all of its members with respect to the proper interpretation of the 'value of benefits" to be reimbursed under the Policy, it was Lee alone who would be affected by, and thus entitled to litigate, the amount to be reimbursed to the City."

As to Supreme Court's "sua sponte vacating its prior order and judgment, which confirmed the arbitration award by Lewandowski, and directing further arbitration," the Appellate Division vacated "the second ordering paragraph of the order on appeal."

Although Supreme Court had authority to "vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice," the Appellate Division observed that such authority "is not unlimited" and a court's "inherent power to exercise control over its judgments is not plenary, and should be resorted to only to relieve a party from judgments taken through [fraud,] mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect." Further, noted the Appellate Division, in vacating the order and judgment the Supreme Court "exceeded the narrow bounds within which courts are authorized to alter [arbitration] awards" as set out in CPLR 7511 (b) or (c) for vacating or modifying an arbitration award", which provisions apply to the arbitrator's failure to award the City a specific dollar amount for the value of benefits received by Lee, "and the court had no power to disturb the award apart from the grounds set forth in those subdivisions."

The court, Justice Nemoyer dissenting, dismissed the City's Article 75 petition seeking confirmation of the arbitration award in favor of the City "for lack of personal jurisdiction" over the grievant.

* Under the Policy, "[a]ny Officer . . . shall have a right to a representative of his or her choosing, and at his or her own cost, at any stage of this procedure, and shall be given a reasonable opportunity to . . . obtain a representative and/or counsel." Lee exercised that right and retained an attorney to represent her in the arbitration conducted before arbitrator.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_05077.htm

Removing a school official for an alleged unauthorized disclosure of confidential information

Removing a school official for an alleged unauthorized disclosure of confidential information

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision of the Commissioner No. 17,422

This appeal to the Commissioner, among other issues, concerned allegations that confidential information was disclosed and that the alleged wrongdoers should be removed from office.

With respect to the application to the Commissioner seeking the removal of a board member from the School Board "for impermissibly disclosing confidential notes," the Commissioner observed that a member of the board of education or a school officer may be removed from office pursuant to Education Law §306 when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the board member or school officer 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 Commissioner of Education.

Further, explained the Commissioner, "[t]o be considered willful, the board member’s actions must have been intentional and with a wrongful purpose" and   in an appeal or removal application to the Commissioner, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief.

School board members, as public officers, take an oath of office to uphold the law and faithfully discharge their duties and, among other things, are responsible for educational standards, budget matters, management issues, and health and safety. In carrying out their duties, school board members individually "have a fiduciary obligation to act constructively to achieve the best possible governance of the school district.

The Commissioner said that General Municipal Law §805-a(1)(b) specifically provides that no municipal officer or employee, including a school board member, shall “disclose confidential information acquired by him [or her] in the course of his [or her] official duties or use such information to further his [or her] personal interests” and within the public school system, the term “confidential,” means “[i]nformation that is meant to be kept secret.”

As to defining the meaning of the word "confidential," it is the "sole province of the Commissioner of Education to define the meaning of the word 'confidential' within the public school system and ensure its uniform application in this context."* Further, said the Commissioner, "[i]t is well-settled that a board member’s disclosure of confidential information which violates General Municipal Law §805-a(1)(b) may constitute grounds for a board member’s removal from office pursuant to Education Law §306.

Jessica Lovinsky and Phee Simpson [Petitioners] in this appeal claim that a board member disclosed “unredacted” notes to a newspaper reporter and buttress their claim with an email from the reporter to counsel for Simpson in which the reporter states that she is “writing an article on the Poughkeepsie district’s graduation investigation and subsequent appeal,” and that, in the article, she planned to “cit[e] records that relate[d] to Phee Simpson. The email also purported to include three attachments that Petitioners have attached, contending that they are copies of these three attachments.

The School District's answer to Petitioners' appeal to the Commissioner denied Petitioners' contentions. 

The Commissioner ruled that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proving that the School Board, as a body, or any individual school board member was responsible for disclosing the documents in question to the reporter or to anyone else. 

The Commissioner explained that the first element of a claimed disclosure of confidential information is disclosure, and a petitioner must prove that the alleged actor or actors did, in fact, disclosed allegedly confidential information. Here, however, said the Commissioner,  "Petitioners have wholly failed to meet this showing, providing no facts or assertions suggesting that any respondent provided the [newspaper reporter] with the allegedly confidential information."

Accordingly, the Commissioner dismissed Petitioners' application seeking the removal of the board member.

* N.B. In 2005 State Education Department Counsel and Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs notified school officials, including school board members, and school attorneys of the Commissioner's decision in Application of Nett and Raby (45 Ed Dept Rep 259, Decision No. 15,315)] that the Commissioner’s views with respect to the term "confidential" differed from the interpretation of the term “confidential” offered by New York State’s Committee on Open Government.

The Commissioner's decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume57/d17422