ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED IN COMPOSING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

Oct 6, 2025

The health insurance benefits of a retiree of a school district or a BOCES cannot be diminished unless a corresponding diminution is made for its active employees

In this hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, Petitioner challenged a decision of the Board of a Cooperative Educational Services [BOCES] to discontinue its reimbursing certain of its retired employees' Medicare Part B charges and eliminated its reimbursements for Medicare Part D premiums. 

Petitioner also sought a judgment declaring that the BOCES violated Chapter 729 of the Laws of 1994, as amended by Chapter 22 of the Laws of 2007, the so-called "Moratorium Law", prohibiting a school district or a BOCES from diminishing its retirees' health insurance benefits unless it makes a corresponding diminution of such benefits then available to its active employees.

Supreme Court granted the Petitioner's appeal and annulled the BOCES' action. The BOCES was directed to reinstate the subject reimbursements and benefits and the Supreme Court held that the BOCES had violated the Moratorium Law. The BOCES appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court's determinations, explaining:

1. The Moratorium Law "sets a minimum baseline or floor for retiree health benefits, which is measured by the health insurance benefits received by the employer's active employees";

2. A school district or BOCES "may not diminish retirees' health insurance benefits unless it makes 'a corresponding diminution in the health insurance benefits or contributions of active employees'"; and

3. The purpose of the Moratorium Law "is to protect the rights of retirees who are not represented in the collective bargaining process".

The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court had correctly determined that BOCES did not make a "corresponding diminution in the health insurance benefits or contributions of active employees" when it reduced the reimbursements to the Petitioner's Medicare Part B charges and eliminated reimbursements for Medicare Part D premiums. 

In addition, the Appellate Division opined that "Supreme Court correctly compared the health insurance coverage offered to certain retirees to the health insurance coverage offered to the active employees" and found that BOCES' contentions to the contrary were "without merit".

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



Oct 4, 2025

Selected items posted on blogs during the week ending October 4, 2025

Data Tangles & AI Wrangles: Mastering the Chaos of Complex Systems This webinar explores the real-world challenges IT leaders encounter when linking diverse data sources, legacy applications and modern AI tools.WATCH NOW 

Government Workforce Resilience in the Age of Efficiency Hear how forward-thinking state and local agencies are building self-sufficient teams that maintain quality and security standards even during rapid transitions. WATCH NOW

Low-Code Strategies That Actually Work in Government Hear how state and local agencies are using low/no-code tools to reduce IT backlog, scale services and maintain strong security and governance. WATCH NOW

Next-Gen IT: Smarter Devices and Flexible Management Learn how smarter IT strategies can boost workforce satisfaction, streamline operations and support a future-ready public sector. WATCH NOW 

Public vs. Private Sector CIAM: What Sets Them Apart and Why It Matters Explore tailored CIAM (Customer Identity and Access Management) solutions, built for the public sector. WATCH NOW

AI-Powered Automation that Serves Your Mission for Efficient Government Gain insights on how to deploy secure, scalable AI solutions that work seamlessly with your current infrastructure—ensuring compliance and minimizing risk. WATCH NOW  

Making It Easier for Residents to Sign In and Use Digital Services Digital services are expanding, but many agencies still rely on outdated systems to manage how people sign in and access them. This white paper explains how modernizing identity and access management can help reduce fraud, cut support costs, and make online services easier and safer for everyone to use. DOWNLOAD 

Transparency in Motion: Real-Time Data for Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Public safety agencies are under pressure to do more with less -- respond faster, operate more efficiently, and remain accountable to both leadership and the communities they serve. This paper explores how telematics and in-vehicle data are helping agencies meet those expectations and deliver measurable results. DOWNLOAD  

Making It Easier for Residents to Sign In and Use Digital Services Digital services are expanding, but many agencies still rely on outdated systems to manage how people sign in and access them. This white paper explains how modernizing identity and access management can help reduce fraud, cut support costs, and make online services easier and safer for everyone to use. DOWNLOAD 

Transparency in Motion: Real-Time Data for Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Public safety agencies are under pressure to do more with less -- respond faster, operate more efficiently, and remain accountable to both leadership and the communities they serve. This paper explores how telematics and in-vehicle data are helping agencies meet those expectations and deliver measurable results. DOWNLOAD 


Webinar – AI and its transformation of state courts Access the webinar to learn more about AI’s potential to revolutionize your court’s operational efficiency Watch Today!


Oct 1, 2025

An applicant for accidental disability retirement must establish that the disability suffered was the result of an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law

Petitioner, a police detective assigned to an executive protection detail, filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits contending that he was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties as the result of an incident that occurred in the course of his performance of his duties. 

The New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System [ERS] denied Petitioner's application based on its determination the underlying incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §363. Petitioner filed an administrative appeal. 

An Administrative Hearing Officer sustained the ERS ruling after an administrative  hearing. Petitioner then initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the ERS ruling.

Citing Matter of Stefanik v Gardner, 236 AD3d 75, the Appellate Division dismissed Plaintiff's appeal, explaining:

1. "As the applicant, [Petitioner] bore the burden of establishing that his disability arose from an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, ERS's determination in this regard will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence; 

2. "An accident in this context means a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact";* 

3. Petitioner testified that on the day in question he was assigned to the executive protection detail and, in that capacity, had transported a county executive to various meetings and that he did not recall anything significant events having occurring in the course of his performing such tasks; and 

4. The record did not indicate that Petitioner had engaged in any particularly stressful or strenuous activity in the course of Petitioner's performance of such duties 

Based on the record, the Appellate Division held the Petitioner failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that his disability arose from an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, disagreeing with Petitioner's argument to the extent that he had contended that "the chest pain he experienced — in and of itself — was sudden and unexpected and, hence, qualified as a precipitating accidental event".

Accordingly, the Court ruled that "ERS's determination denying Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits will not be disturbed".

* See Matter of Stefanik v Gardner, 236 AD3d 75.

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


Editor in Chief Harvey Randall served as Director of Personnel, State University of New York Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor's Office of Employee Relations; Principal Attorney, Counsel's Office, New York State Department of Civil Service; and Colonel, JAG, Command Headquarters, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com