Mayoral Control of New York City Schools report issued by the New York State Department of Education

On April 10, 2024, the New York State Department of Education released its report addressing "Mayoral Control of New York City Schools". Click HERE to access the Department's report posted on the Internet.

N.B.: This report is Copyrighted ©2024. However, the report includes the following statement:

"Except as expressly provided to the contrary, permission to copy, use, and distribute the materials within is hereby granted without fee for personal, private and educational purposes, except that reproducing materials for profit or any commercial use is strictly forbidden without express prior written permission of the New York State Education Department. Requests for permission should be sent to legal@nysed.gov."

 

Seeking a Writ of Mandamus to compel a particular action by a public official

In deciding a CPLR Article 78 action, the Appellate Division, First Department, addressed the efforts of one of the parties in the action to obtain a Writ of Mandamus to compel a particular action by a public official.

Citing Klostermann v Cuomo, 61 NY2d 525, the court observed that mandamus "is an extraordinary remedy that, by definition, is available only in limited circumstances". 

The Appellate Division's decision also notes that mandamus "will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought", citing Matter of Wyche v Haywood-Diaz, 206 AD3d 748. In addition, the decision points out that the remedy of mandamus "does not lie to compel an act which involves an exercise of judgment or discretion" by the official.

Further, the Appellate Division's decision notes that Supreme Court "properly denied a branch of the petition" because "the petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before commencing this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, and there is no basis in the record to determine that any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement would apply."

The Appellate Division then opined that "to the extent the petitioners' challenge ... was predicated upon a constitutional claim," that claim "hinges upon factual issues reviewable at the administrative level [which] must first be addressed to the agency so that a necessary factual record can be established," and thus, the petitioners were not excused from the obligation to pursue administrative remedies prior to commencing this proceeding.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

 

Reviewing the Comptroller's determination denying an application for performance of duty and accidental disability retirement benefits

A police officer [Petitioner] filed applications for performance of duty and accidental disability retirement benefits in June 2014 based upon an incident that occurred on September 22, 2011. Petitioner alleged that he was injured when a rolling chair slammed into the back of a chair in which Petitioner was then seated, resulting in injuries to his back, as well as the development of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Petitioner returned to a light-duty position in January 2012 but stopped working in June 2013. Although the applications were initially denied, ultimately New York State and Local Retirement System [System] conceded that the September 2011 incident constituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, and that the accident caused Petitioner's disability. Following a hearing, however, the Hearing Officer upheld the denials, finding that Petitioner had failed to establish that he was permanently incapacitated from performing the duties of his light-duty assignment. The Comptroller accepted the Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions, resulting in Petitioner initiating a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Comptroller's decision.

Both parties agreed that the applicable standard is whether Petitioner was capable of performing the duties of his light-duty assignment (see 2 NYCRR 364.3 [b].

Petitioner's expert concluded that Petitioner's psychological condition was permanent and prevents him from returning to any form of police work, including his light-duty assignment. The System's expert, however, concluded that Petitioner was permanently disabled from performing his light-duty position with his  police department, as returning to the location of the incident would trigger his condition, although Petitioner could perform a light-duty assignment elsewhere, provided certain conditions were met.

The Comptroller credited the System's expert and denied Petitioner's applications.

The Appellate Division, observing that the record indicated that there is no assignment available that complies with the limitations described in the testimony of the System's expert in Petitioner's agency, said it was undisputed that Petitioner is permanently incapacitated from performing his light-duty assignment due to his psychological condition. 

Citing Matter of Lipsky v New York State Comptroller, 56 AD3d 1101, the court held that the Comptroller's determination that Petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from performing the duties of his assignment was "not supported by substantial evidence in this record and thus must be annulled."

Click HERE to access the Appellate Divisions decision posted on the Internet.