Employer’s internal regulations are not a “well-developed body of law and regulation” for the purposes of §205-a of the General Municipal Law

Employer’s internal regulations are not a “well-developed body of law and regulation” for the purposes of §205-a of the General Municipal Law
Vosilla v City of New York, 2010 NY Slip Op 07162, decided on October 5, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department

§205-a of the General Municipal Law, in pertinent part, provides for an additional right of action to firefighters “in the event any accident, causing injury, death or a disease which results in death, occurs directly or indirectly as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence of any person or persons in failing to comply with the requirements of any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments or of any and all their departments, divisions and bureaus.”

Joseph Vosilla, a New York City firefighter, filed a lawsuit seeking to recover damages for personal injuries he alleged he sustained as a result of the City’s violation of certain provisions of the New York City Fire Department All Unit Circulars, Incident Command System manual provisions, and internal rules concerning, classification and inspection of buildings, “and that such violations directly or indirectly caused the injuries he sustained in the line of duty.”

The Appellate Division, however, rejected Vosilla’s theory that the City was liable for damages in this instance, ruling that “These internal regulations … cannot serve as a predicate for liability under General Municipal Law §205-a, since they are not part of a "well-developed body of law and regulation" imposing clear legal duties or mandating the performance or nonperformance of specific acts.”

Accordingly, said the court, the City established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action pursuant to GML §205-a insofar as asserted against it and, in opposition, Vosilla failed to raise a triable issue of fact and thus Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the City's motion summary judgment dismissing the cause of action pursuant to GML §205-a insofar as asserted against it.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_07162.htm
NYPPL

Public Sector union did not breach its duty of fair representation

Public Sector union did not breach its duty of fair representation
Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/
Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2010, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

Delsante v. CSEA, ____Misc. 3d____(Richmond Co. June 15, 2010), illustrates how the duty of fair representation in the public sector is similar, though not identical to the private sector. The two differences are the statute of limitations in the public sector (in New York) is 4 months as opposed to 6 months in the private sector. Additionally, the standard is a bit more favorable to unions in the public sector. As the court explained:

“With respect to claims based upon the alleged breach of a duty of fair representation, the plaintiff must establish that the defendants acted "deliberately invidious, arbitrary and founded in bad faith" (Ponticello v. County of Suffolk, 225 AD2d 751, 752 [2d Dept., 1996]; Gordon v. City of New York, 167 AD2d 509, 509-510 [2d Dept., 1990]; Garvin v. NYS Pub. Emply Relations Bd., 168 AD2d 446, 446 [2d Dept., 1990]). Here, the defendants have established that they pursued the avenues available to assist the plaintiff in her grievance but because of her probationary status, the options were limited pursuant to the CSEA Collective Bargaining Agreement § 33.1 which specifically states "[t]he disciplinary procedure provided herein is not applicable to review the removal of an employee from a probationary appointment". Defendants established that Mrs. Zarvos, the Labor Relations Specialist with CSEA, met with the plaintiff; spoke with Mr. Lescinski in an effort to negotiate reinstating the plaintiff and wrote a letter on her behalf but, again, because of her probationary status any further grievance options were limited. As is well established, "a union is not required to carry every grievance to the highest level, and the mere failure on the part of a union to proceed to arbitration with a grievance is not, per se, a breach of its duty of fair representation" (Garvin v. NYS Pub. Employment Relations Bd., 168 AD2d 446, 446-447 [2d Dept., 1990]; Ponticello v. County of Suffolk, 225 AD2d 751, 752 [2d Dept., 1996]).

"In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). The plaintiff has failed to present any evidence that the defendants acted in any way deliberately, arbitrary or in bad faith in not pursuing the grievance further and in fact, the plaintiff's failed to present any evidence or dispute the fact that the plaintiff was on probationary status (Garvin v. NYS Pub. Employment Relations Bd., 168 AD2d 446, 447 [2d Dept., 1990][dismissing the petition as no evidence of bad faith, arbitrariness or discriminatory conduct was presented]).”

Mitchell H. Rubinstein
NYPPL

Applying for disability retirement

Applying for disability retirement
Bowns v McCall, 263 AD2d 668
Vecchi v NY State and Local Employees’ Retirement System, 263 AD2d 669

In order to qualify for accidental disability retirement benefits, a member of the New York State Employees’ Retirement System [ERS] must prove:

1. That he or she was injured while at work; and

2. The injury was the result of an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law [RSSL], i.e., that the injury resulted from an “unexpected and sudden mischance” and not from a risk “inherent in the regular duties of the applicant.”

The first test is relatively simple to demonstrate; the second test -- that the injury resulted from an accident within the meaning of RSSL -- is substantially more difficult to prove.

To meet the second test the employee has the burden of presenting substantial evidence that his or her injury resulted from a “sudden or unexpected event” in contrast to being merely the result of physical exertion undertaken in the performance of his or her routine or regular employment duties.

In both the Bowns and Vecchi cases the Appellate Division sustained the Comptroller’s determination that for the purposes of qualifying for a RSSL disability retirement allowance, the disability suffered by these employees as a result of an on-the-job incident did not result from an accident within the meaning of the RSSL.

The Bowns case

Norman Bowns, a maintenance assistant employed by the State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits claiming a disabling back injury he sustained while he and a co-worker were moving a heavy six-drawer file cabinet away from a wall. Bowns said that the cabinet became stuck and, when pushed, began to tip towards him and he had “catch the cabinet and support its weight in order to keep it from falling on him.”

This, Bowns argued, constituted an accident because “moving a file cabinet was unusual and unrelated to his normal work.” The court sustained the Comptroller’s finding that Bowns’ injury did not result from an accident because Bowns’ supervisor had specifically assigned him to perform this task and Bowns’ job duties included occasional assignments to perform manual labor jobs outside of his regular department.

The Vecchi decision

The Appellate Division also sustained the Comptroller’s rejection of Joanne Vecchi’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. Vecchi, a school bus driver/cleaner, testified that she slipped on wet pavement following a rainstorm and although she attempted to balance herself, her foot caught on some gravel and she fell.

The court said that there was substantial evidence that Vecchi’s “injury occurred in the ordinary course of her duties and resulted from her own misstep, not from an unexpected event.” In other words, the mishap was not an accident for the purposes of qualifying for accidental disability retirement benefits.
.