OATH launches citywide text-messaging reminder system for all civil summonses

On September 4, 2020, the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] announced a citywide launch of a text-messaging reminder system to remind respondents about their Hearings Division hearing dates. Respondents can register by simply texting "OATH reminder" to 474747, and then responding to the prompt with their summons number. 

"Every person who receives a summons should know that OATH's goal is to make it as convenient as possible for them to respond to that summons and direct text messages that explain our hearing process, the consequences for not responding to summonses, and remind people of important deadlines is just one way OATH is doing that," said Commissioner and Chief Administrative Judge Joni Kletter. 

For more information, read OATH's press release.

Salaries of undercover police officers not subject to disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law

§89[3][a] of the New York State (Public Officers Law)*, The Freedom of Information Law [FOIL], provides that "[n]othing in [the statute] shall be construed to require any entity to prepare any record not possessed or maintained by such entity."

In this CPLR Article 78 action the Empire Center for Public Policy [Empire] challenged the denial of its FOIL request seeking the aggregate gross salary of all individuals not included in the NYC Open Data Citywide Payroll Database for fiscal year 2017.

The Supreme Court's decision indicating that the information sought by Empire would include the salaries of "undercover police officers, whether aggregated or individualized," denied Empire's petition request for individualized salary information as to such individuals and Empire appealed.

The Appellate Division unanimously modified, on the law, part of the Supreme Court's order, vacating that part of the order requiring the disclose aggregate salary information, and otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, indicating that:

1. Such information is exempt from disclosure under FOIL's public safety exemption;

2. The respondent, the New York City Office of Payroll Administration, met its burden of making a particularized showing that publicly releasing this information would create "a possibility of endangerment" to the public's safety; and

3. The New York City Office of Payroll Administration is not obligated to compile "aggregate data" "from the documents or records in its possession"** (See Matter of Reubens v Murray, 194 AD2d 492).

The Appellate Division opined that in the analysis of Empire's request not only the instant FOIL request for information as to fiscal year 2017 is to be considered but also future requests which could be made for equivalent information as to other years. Citing Matter of Grabell v New York City Police Dept., 139 AD3d 477, the court said that such information would allow members of the public to estimate the increases or decreases in the overall number of undercover officers, which could "undermine their deterrent effect, hamper NYPD's counterterrorism operations, and increase the likelihood of another terrorist attack." The New York City Office of Payroll Administration's past disclosure of salary and other information as to certain public employees not employed by NYPD is not dispositive.

* Public Officers Law §89[3][a], with exceptions not raised in this action.

** See Matter of Reubens v Murray, 194 AD2d 492.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_05449.htm

 

With few exceptions, an officer's or an employee's resignation from a position in the classified service must be in writing.

The petitioner [Plaintiff] in this CPLR Article 78 action was employed by the defendant [Town] in a position in the Labor Class of the Classified Service when he was elected to public office in another jurisdiction.

The Petitioner and the Town subsequently disputed whether Plaintiff had orally resigned his position with Town and ultimately the Town sent a letter to Plaintiff reporting that "it had accepted [Plaintiff's resignation]"* effective the December 31. Although Plaintiff sought to retain his position with the Town, the Town refused his request under color of Plaintiff's purported oral resignation.

Plaintiff filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order directing the Town to reinstate him to his position with back pay, and benefits, contending, among other things, that the Town's action terminating from his position was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of Civil Service Law §75-b.

Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff claim with respect to the alleged violation of Civil Service Law §75-b, but otherwise granted Plaintiff's petition and directed the Town to reinstate Petitioner to his position with the Town with back pay and benefits. The Town appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division rejected the Town's appeal explaining that it was not inconsistent for Supreme Court to dismiss Plaintiff's claim with respect to the alleged violation of Civil Service Law §75-b and then grant him relief pursuant to CPLR Article 78, noting that notwithstanding the Town's argument to the contrary, Plaintiff's to elective office in another jurisdiction did not constitute an automatic resignation of his position as laborer with the Town. Citing People ex rel. Ryan v Green, 58 NY 304, the Appellate Division opined that "[P]hysical impossibility is not the incompatibility of the common law, which existing, one office is ipso factovacated by accepting another." Based upon the record before it, the Appellate Division opined that the two positions in question were not per se incompatible.

Addressing the Town's contention that Supreme Court's granting Plaintiff's petition was erroneous in view of Plaintiff's alleged oral resignation, the court said that the Town's argument was without merit inasmuch as the Town's  employee handbook requires that an employee's resignation be in writing.**

The Appellate Division also rejected the Town's  argument that Plaintiff was not entitled to back pay and benefits. Rather, said the court, CPLR Article 78 allows for damages incidental to "the primary relief sought by the [Plaintiff], i.e., reinstatement to employment and such damages may include full back pay and benefits retroactive to the date of termination."

* Although it is sometimes reported that "a resignation has been accepted," all that is required for a resignation to become operative is its delivery to the appointing authority; approval or acceptance of the resignation is not required for the resignation to take effect (see Hazelton v Connelly, 25 NYS2d 74) unless specific acceptance of a resignation is required by law, rule, regulation or the terms of a controlling collective bargaining agreement. An example of requiring the "acceptance" of the resignation for it to take effect: §2111 of the Education Law, "Resignation of district officers." §2111 states that a school district officer "may resign to a district meeting." §2111 then further provides that officer shall also be deemed to have resigned if he or she filed a written resignation with the district superintendent of his of her district and such superintendent endorses thereon his approval and files the same with the district clerk [emphasis supplied]. See, also, §2110.3 of the Education Law.

** The Town  is located in Seneca County and the County's Civil Service Rule XX, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 1. RESIGNATION IN WRITING: Except as otherwise provided herein, every resignation shall be in writing.

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_05312.htm