Applying compensation limitations retroactively

Applying compensation limitations retroactively

People v Edward J. Murphy, 235 A.D.2d 554

In 1993 certain limitations on the amount of compensation that a BOCES Superintendent could receive were enacted into law [Chapter 295, Laws of 1993].

In the Murphy case the Appellate Division concluded that the limitations set out in Chapter 295 did not apply retroactively.

The case arose when the State attempted to recover a portion of what the Appellate Division described as an "overly generous BOCES compensation package (which included extensive sick and vacation leave time and the right to liquidate this leave at full-pay)" granted to its then BOCES Superintendent Edward J. Murphy.

The Court said that "while improvident, BOCES' offer to Murphy, and his acceptance of the overly generous BOCES compensation package ... did not violate any articulated public policy." 

Further, the Court ruled that although the law now places a limitation on the amount of compensation that a BOCES superintendent may receive, "at the time Murphy began working at BOCES and continuing throughout his tenure as the BOCES district superintendent, the law provided for no such restrictions. Accordingly, the Court decided, Murphy's employment agreements with BOCES were neither illegal nor unauthorized.

The ruling suggests that all or part of a "compensation package" in place prior to the effective date of the enactment or the amendment of a law limiting the compensation of a public officer or a public employee then in service may survive judicial challenge even if the compensation package is in excess of that authorized by the law as enacted or amended.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1997789235ad2d5541272

Accessing the personnel records of law enforcement personnel

Accessing the personnel records of law enforcement personnel

Ferrara v Superintendent, Division of State Police, 235 A.D.2d 874,  Appeal dismissed, 90 N.Y.2d 829, Defendant's motion to dismiss appeal granted, 26 F.Supp.2d 410

A prisoner at the Oneida Correctional Facility, submitted a Freedom on Information request to the Division of State Police seeking "records of disciplinary action taken against members of the State Police" as the result of an internal investigation.

The Appellate Division, in sustaining the Division's refusal to provide such information, explained that such records are specifically exempted from disclosure under Civil Rights Law §50-a.

In a similar cases, Nassau County Police Department v Kevin, 237 A.D.2d 354, the Appellate Division quashed a judicial subpoena issued by a District Court that ordered the production of "internal police directives and orders" that it was alleged would establish the existence of a quota system for making arrests for driving while intoxicated on the Long Island Expressway. 

See, also, 166 Misc.2d 207. Here the driver of a motor vehicle had been arrested for allegedly driving 85 miles an hour while intoxicated by Nassau County Police. The Appellate Division said the driver presented nothing to support his claim and that a subpoena may not be used "to fish for impeaching material".

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/19971109235ad2d8742420

Sending threatening texts messages to a co-worker

Sending threatening texts messages to a co-worker

OATH Index No. 2411/18

An employee was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to Section 7.5 of the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the Health and Hospitals Corporation alleging that he sent threatening text messages to another employee of the Corporation. The employee apologized for his actions the next day and subsequently took, and completed, five months of counseling and anger management training and received a certificate confirming that he had successfully completed the treatment program.

OATH Administrative Law Judge John B. Spooner, in consideration of the employee's sincere expressions of remorse and his substantial efforts to deal with his anger control issues, recommended that the appointing authority impose a penalty of a 60-day suspension, without credit for employee's 30-day pre-hearing suspension without pay.

Section 7.5.5 of HHC's Personnel Rules and Regulations, "Sustaining of Charges - Penalty," provides as follows:

If the charges are sustained, the penalty or punishment may consist of the following and the time which the employee is suspended without pay pending the hearing may be considered as part of the penalty:

a) A reprimand; or
b) A fine not to exceed $100.00 to be deducted from his/her salary; or
c) Suspension without pay not exceeding two months; or
d) Demotion in grade and title; or 
e) Dismissal from service.

Similarly, §75.3 of the Civil Service Law provides, in pertinent part, "that the time during which an officer or employee is suspended  without pay may be considered as part of the penalty."

However both §7.5.4 of the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the Health and Hospitals Corporation and §75.3 of the Civil Service Law, in pertinent part, state that if the employee is acquitted of the disciplinary charges, the individual shall be restored to the position with full pay for the period of the suspension without pay, less the amount of any unemployment insurance benefits or wages the individual received during that period.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/18_cases/18-2411.pdf

_________________

Click here to Read a FREE excerpt from A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances, disciplinary penalties imposed on officers and employees of New York State and its political subdivisions.