Court vacates hearing officer’s determination for failure to comply with the agency’s rules and regulations

Court vacates hearing officer’s determination for failure to comply with the agency’s rules and regulations

This decision by the Appellate Division demonstrates that administrative due process applies in cases where a prisoner is charged with alleged misconduct and a disciplinary proceeding is conducted.

In this instance a prisoner was found guilty of certain alleged offences and a penalty of 90 days in solitary confinement and restitution of $100 was imposed. The individual appealed.

The Appellate Division, reversing a lower court’s ruling to the contrary, granted the prisoner’s petition and [1] annulled the determination of the hearing officer, [2] dismissed the charges against the individual and [3] directed the New York City Department of Correction “to expunge all references to the charges from [the individual’s] institutional records.”

The court found that hearing officer failed to provide accused with a written statement summarizing the testimony of three witnesses who testified in his favor and failed to state her reasons for rejecting the testimony of those witnesses and of the accused, in violation of relevant directives of the New York City Department of Correction. The Appellate Division said that the agency “is required to comply with its own regulation.”

Considering a procedural issue, the Appellate Division held that although the Department contended that the prisoner had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, it would not consider that defense because the Department had failed to raise that claim it its answer.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02947.htm

Determining if a grievance resulting from an alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement is subject to arbitration

Determining if a grievance resulting from an alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement is subject to arbitration

In the Matter of the Arbitration between the Village of Horseheads and the Horseheads Police Benevolent Assn., Inc., 2012 NY Slip Op 02543, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Appellate Division, affirming a lower court’s ruling, said that the role of the court in reviewing an application to stay arbitration is limited. In determining if a particular grievance is subject to arbitration, the court must first determine if the parties may lawfully arbitrate the underlying dispute and, if so, whether they did in fact agree to so arbitrate the issue.

In this instance the Village of Horseheads did not contend that there was a statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitrating this particular grievance. Accordingly, the sole issue for the court to determine was whether or not the parties, in accordance with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, agreed to arbitrate the grievance presented by the Police Benevolent Association.

The relevant collective bargaining provision, said the court, defined a grievance as "any claimed violation, misinterpretation or inequitable application of existing laws, rules, procedures, regulations, application or enforcement of the terms of this agreement, administrative orders or work orders or rules of [the Village]."
Whether the Village’s action constituted an actual violation of a rule or regulation "goes to the merits of the grievance [itself], not to its arbitrability," said the court. Accordingly, this was an issue for the arbitrator to resolve.

In contrast, the Appellate Division emphasized that “For purposes of [its] limited inquiry, it [was] sufficient that [the Association had] asserted a ‘claimed violation’ of certain rules and regulations and that a ‘claimed violation’ is, in turn, subject to the grievance procedure set forth in the CBA “

The decision is posted on the Internet at: 

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02543.htm

Appointing authority urged to permit employee terminated for cause to apply for a vested interest retirement

Appointing authority urged to permit employee terminated for cause to apply for a vested interest retirement

The police commissioner terminated a police officer after he was found guilty of official misconduct and violations of the Police Department Patrol Guide.

The Appellate Division annulled the commissioner’s action after dismissing certain specifications and remanded the matter the commissioner “for a determination of a new penalty on the remaining specifications.” Although the court found that there was no substantial evidence to prove the specifications that it had dismissed, it, in contrast, said that the “remaining specifications” were supported by substantial evidence.

However, the Appellate Division also said that “If the Commissioner sees fit to adhere to the penalty of termination,” the police officer "should be permitted to apply for a vested interest retirement."

Although the court acknowledged that the commissioner's penalty determination “is deserving of due deference,” it explained that it was also mindful of the fact that courts "cannot operate merely as a rubber stamp of the administrative determination if the measure of punishment or discipline imposed is so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all of the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness.”

Characterizing the police officer’s misconduct  “an aberration from his otherwise exemplary career over approximately two decades,” and that termination would work an extreme hardship on the officer’s innocent family, the Appellate Division, Judge Sweeny dissenting, concluded that “[u]nder these circumstances, even in light of the repellent behavior exhibited by [the officer], the deprivation of his retirement benefits is shocking to one's sense of fairness, citing the Pell Doctrine [Matter of Pell, 34 NY2d at 233].

N.B. The Administrative Code of the City of New York provides that an employee may forfeit his or her retirement allowance under certain circumstances. For example, Section 13-173.1 of the Administrative Code requires a sanitation member to "be in service" on the effective date of his or her retirement or vesting of retirement benefits. If the member is not "in service" on that date, he or she forfeits his or her retirement benefits.The Court of Appeals addressed the provisions of Section 13-173.1 in Waldeck v NYC Employees' Retirement System, 81 N.Y.2d 804, decided with Barbaro v NYC Employees' Retirement System.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02787.htm

Former employee’s law suit alleging statements in the minutes of a board meeting were defamatory dismissed

Former employee’s law suit alleging statements in the minutes of a board meeting were defamatory dismissed

A court clerk was terminated by the town justice. The next day the town justice appeared at a special meeting of the Town Board to discuss the clerk’s termination and to request approval to hire a replacement court clerk.

The former town clerk then sued the town justice and the Town alledging that defamatory statements concerning her work and qualifications were recorded in the minutes of the Town Board’s special meeting and the minutes, that were later approved, were posted on the Town's Web site.*

Although the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court erred in dismissing the slander cause of action filed by the former court clerk against the town justice as untimely,** it held that the lower court had correctly determined that all of the statements the former court clerk alleged to be defamatory were either [1] opinion; [2] not directed at former court clerk; or [3] needed extrinsic facts to make them defamatory.

Thus, concluded the court, Supreme Court “correctly determined that the statements were not defamatory as a matter of law” and dismissed the complaint.

* See Public Officers Law §106

** The Appellate Division observed that if the town justice was acting solely on his or her own behalf, the Town would not be liable for his or her actions and the CPLR §215[3]’s one-year statute of limitations would apply to the cause of action. In contrast, if the town justice was acting within the scope of his or her employment with the Town, the Town may be liable for his or her conduct and would thus be the real party in interest; and under those circumstances the provisions set out in General Municipal Law §50-i would control.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02546.htm

Some procedural defects that bar the vacating of the arbitrator’s award

Some procedural defects that bar the vacating of the arbitrator’s award
Beals v New York City Transit Authority, 2012 NY Slip Op 02784, Appellate Division, First Department

The Beals decision by the Appellate Division, First Department, sets out a number of procedural defects that defeated the employee’s efforts to vacate an adverse arbitration award.

First, said the Appellate Division, the arbitrator “properly declined” to apply the collective bargaining agreement's statute of limitations for filing disciplinary charges as, pursuant to its terms, the statute of limitations did not commence to run while an investigation of the conduct leading to the disciplinary charges against employee was under way. Further, said the court, “any error by the arbitrator in interpreting the facts or applying the law on this issue did not provide a basis for vacatur of the award.”

Other procedural defects noted by the Appellate Division barring granting the employee’s petition seeking to the vacate the award in this instance included:

1. An individual waives his or her claims that the arbitrator should have enforced his or her witness subpoenas by failing to seek a stay of the arbitration and a court ruling compelling compliance and by continuing with the arbitration;

2. An arbitrator's erroneous evidentiary rulings with may support vacatur only if the evidence would have been pertinent and material; and

3. The employee’s failure to cite any provision in the collective bargaining agreement to support his or her contention that the arbitrator exceeded a restriction on his or her power.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02784.htm