The Law and the Emoji

A single 👍 emoji contained in an email that the sender alleged was simply intended to indicate “got it” resulted in a legal battle involving the payment of about $62,000 for certain goods and raised the question "Can an emoji seal a contract?".  

Source: The following was posted on the Internet at:

 https://99percentinvisible.org/?p=45069) (50) 😅⚖️ - YouTube

"In 2021, a Canadian farmer named Chris Achter responded to a buyer’s grain contract with a simple 👍 emoji. What followed wasn’t just a misunderstanding—it was a legal showdown that captured global attention.

"Achter, based in Saskatchewan, had a long-standing business relationship with the buyer. They often finalized grain deals over text. That year, when the buyer sent over a standard flax contract, Achter responded with a thumbs up. Months later, as drought conditions drove up flax prices, the buyer expected a delivery. None came.

"The buyer sued.

"The central question? Does a thumbs up emoji constitute a digital signature?

"A judge ruled that, yes, it did.

"According to Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, Achter later claimed the emoji was merely an acknowledgment—not acceptance. But the court disagreed, calling the emoji a “nontraditional but valid” form of agreement. The court awarded the buyer over $60,000 in damages.

"Goldman put it bluntly: “That single thumbs up emoji was worth tens of thousands of dollars.” 👍

"Goldman believes this approach should be the norm. “It’s exactly what we would hope the courts would do,” he said."

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli releases statement addressing the 2025-2026 New York State budget

"After extended deliberation, the Governor and Legislature have finalized a state budget.

"Major policy changes in the budget that will be felt across the state include the most significant changes to the Foundation Aid formula since its inception, long-awaited relief to small businesses by paying off the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund loan, and reduced personal income tax rates for lower- and middle-income families starting in 2026. Other new funding initiatives include expanding access to community college for adult learners and preserving access to child care. The budget also fully funds the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s $68.4 billion 2025-2029 capital plan, reflecting a major investment in transportation infrastructure in the New York City Metropolitan area.

"The budget includes significant state-funded increases in education, health and other spending, and authorizes an additional $23 billion in public authority backdoor borrowing. General aid for local governments is largely flat, despite growing signs of fiscal strain at the local level as pandemic aid has ended and costs continue to rise. Deep uncertainty surrounding tariffs, the economy and actions in Washington casts a long shadow on this budget.

"Market volatility and declining business and consumer confidence may upend the state’s revenue projections and increase the already sizeable outyear budget gaps. Actions by Congress may also have a large impact on the state’s finances in the months ahead, and may jeopardize many of the critical safety net programs that New Yorkers rely on and that have always been predominantly funded by the federal government. Federal changes being considered would shift significant costs for Medicaid, food benefits and other programs to states. While the state has a record $8.75 billion in its statutory reserves, these funds are needed to protect against economic and fiscal disruptions, and the state does not have the resources to backfill federal reductions on an ongoing basis.

"The time to develop a strategy and structural reforms is before a crisis, yet this budget includes no serious cost containment measures, particularly in Medicaid, where it is most needed. In these uncertain and disruptive times, the Legislature gave extraordinary powers to the Executive to make mid-year spending cuts in the event of budget imbalance. However, this provision creates further uncertainty for those that depend on state aid.

"The full financial and economic implications of this budget will be clearer when the Financial Plan is released, and close monitoring will be needed to ensure that the state is on a sustainable path and able to navigate the challenges ahead."

The Comptroller also noted that his office "will continue to carefully monitor economic conditions and the state’s cash position and release an analysis of the enacted budget in the coming weeks.”

###

Volunteer firefighter terminated after knowingly making false statements on a medical questionnaire regarding his physical condition

A volunteer firefighter was found guilty of disciplinary charges filed against him pursuant to Section 75 of the New York State Civil Service Law alleging misconduct and insubordination. 

The penalty imposed: terminated of the Petitioner's membership as a volunteer firefighter as the result of the firefighter's having "knowingly made false statements on a medical questionnaire regarding his physical condition."

The Appellate Division, citing Matter of Rutkunas v Stout, 8 NY3d 897 and other decisions, held that the firefighter's action demonstrated a disregard for the safety of other firefighters and the general public. 

In sustaining the imposing of  the penalty of termination, the Appellate Division  opined that the penalty imposed was "not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness".

The text of Appellate Division, Second Department, is set out below:

Matter of Correra v Millwood Fire Dist.

2025 NY Slip Op 02587

Decided on April 30, 2025

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 30, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.

2022-06969
(Index No. 59594/22)

[*1]In the Matter of Robert Correra, petitioner,

v

Millwood Fire District, et al., respondents.

Gould & Berg, LLP, White Plains, NY (Jane Bilus Gould of counsel), for petitioner.

Pinsky Law Group, LLC, Syracuse, NY (Bradley M. Pinsky of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Millwood Fire District dated January 17, 2022. The determination adopted the findings of a hearing officer dated January 5, 2022, made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75, that the petitioner was guilty of a charge of misconduct and a charge of misconduct and insubordination, and terminated the petitioner's membership as a volunteer firefighter with the Millwood Fire District.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The petitioner served as a volunteer firefighter with the respondent Millwood Fire District (hereinafter the District) beginning in 2003. Following a physical examination in 2020, which was required by the District to clear members for operational positions, the District suspended the petitioner's operational privileges and charged him with misconduct. The District alleged, inter alia, that the petitioner provided false information regarding his failure to disclose his designation by the Workers' Compensation Board as "permanently, partially disabled" on a form in connection with the 2020 physical examination. A disciplinary hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 was held on October 28, 2021. At the hearing, the District brought a second charge against the petitioner, alleging misconduct and insubordination, for improperly obtaining a physical examination while his operational privileges were suspended and for failing to provide a medical provider with the current job performance requirements for a firefighter.

In a report and recommendation dated January 5, 2022, the hearing officer found the petitioner guilty of both charges and recommended termination of the petitioner's membership as a volunteer firefighter with the District. On January 17, 2022, the District adopted the findings of the hearing officer and terminated the petitioner's membership. The petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the District's determination, and the Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7803(g).

Generally, "judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, and at which evidence was taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Lipani v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 56 [*2]AD3d 560, 560; see CPLR 7803[4]). Substantial evidence "means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180; see Matter of Ciganik v New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings, 224 AD3d 898, 899). Here, substantial evidence in the record supports the determination that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and insubordination (see Matter of Guarnieri v County of Rockland, 226 AD3d 1018, 1019-1020; Matter of Sekul v City of Poughkeepsie, 195 AD3d 622, 625). The record demonstrates, among other things, that the petitioner knowingly provided false answers on his medical questionnaire regarding his failure to disclose his designation as permanently, partially disabled by the Workers' Compensation Board and improperly obtained a medical examination when his operational privileges were suspended and failed to provide the medical provider with the current job performance requirements for a firefighter.

In light of the fact that the petitioner, inter alia, knowingly made false statements on a medical questionnaire regarding his physical condition, which, under the circumstances, demonstrated a disregard for the safety of other firefighters and the general public, the penalty of termination was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see Matter of Rutkunas v Stout, 8 NY3d 897, 898; Matter of Kurot v East Rockaway Fire Dept., 61 AD3d 760, 761; Matter of Loscuito v Scoppetta, 50 AD3d 905, 906).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, we confirm the determination, deny the petition, and dismiss the proceeding on the merits.

DILLON, J.P., CONNOLLY, CHRISTOPHER and WARHIT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Declining to pursue a grievance submitted by an individual in the relevant collective bargaining unit

In Flowers v District Council 37, 2025 NY Slip Opinion 02720, the Appellate Division, First Department, opined that an employee organization's decision not to pursue a grievance submitted by an individual in the collective bargaining unit it represents as the employee organization's "mere refusal ... to proceed with [the] grievance does not in itself establish a breach of the duty of fair representation".

The Appellate Division's decision is set out below.  

Flowers v District Council 37

2025 NY Slip Op 02720

Decided on May 06, 2025

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: May 06, 2025
Before: Webber, J.P., Scarpulla, Mendez, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, JJ.

Index No. 161683/13|Appeal No. 4284|Case No. 2023-05339|

[*1]Swayne Flowers, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

District Council 37, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Law Offices of Sandra D. Parker, New York (Sandra D. Parker of counsel), for appellant.

Robin Roach, New York (Terry Buck of counsel), for District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, respondent.

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (Melanie T. West of counsel), for New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judy H. Kim, J.), entered September 26, 2023, which granted the motions of defendants District Council 37 AFSCME, AFL-CIO (DC 37) and New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (H+H) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed plaintiff's claims against DC 37, an unincorporated association, because plaintiff failed to plead and prove that the union's "entire membership authorized and later ratified [the union's] actions," as required by the Martin rule (Dowlah v American Arbitration Assn., 221 AD3d 426, 427 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 910 [2024]; see Palladino v CNY Centro, Inc., 23 NY3d 140, 146 [2014]; Martin v Curran, 303 NY 276, 280 [1951];General Associations Law § 13). Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to DC 37's unincorporated status, which was not a matter solely within the union's knowledge.

DC 37 did not waive its right to assert the Martin rule at summary judgment by failing to raise it as an affirmative defense. The Martin rule establishes "pleading and evidence requirements" for plaintiff to satisfy to "maintain[] [this] action" (Salemeh v Toussaint, 25 AD3d 411, 411 [1st Dept 2006]). DC 37's asserted defense that the "[c]omplaint fails to state a claim against [DC 37] upon which relief may be granted" encompassed DC 37's later argument that plaintiff failed to meet his burdens, including under the Martin rule (see Morton v Mulgrew, 144 AD3d 447, 448 [1st Dept 2016]; Salemeh, 25 AD3d at 411-412).

The court also properly dismissed plaintiff's breach of contract claim against his employer, H+H, because his employment was subject to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that contained a grievance procedure. "[O]nly when the union fails in its duty of fair representation can the employee go beyond the agreed procedure and litigate a contract issue directly against the employer" (Matter of Board of Educ., Commack Union Free School Dist. v Ambach, 70 NY2d 501, 508 [1987], cert denied sub nom. Margolin v Board of Educ., Commack Union Free Sch. Dist., 485 US 1034 [1988]).

Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to DC 37's fair representation of him. Evidence that plaintiff's union representative promised to work on plaintiff's complaints but then ignored his communications and failed to attend meetings does not suggest that the union's "activity . . . was deliberately invidious, arbitrary or founded in bad faith" (Matter of Sapadin v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 246 AD2d 359, 360 [1st Dept 1998] [internal quotation marks omitted]). The president of plaintiff's local expressly notified plaintiff of the union's decision not to pursue his grievance, and its "mere refusal . . . to proceed with [his] grievance does not in itself establish a breach of the duty of fair representation" (id. at 359). The CBA provision permitting plaintiff to pursue grievances on his own, as well as his deposition testimony [*2]that he had previously done so, undermine his assertion that he was never made aware that he had that right.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: May 6, 2025