What the Federal Shutdown Means for State and Local Governments

What the Federal Shutdown Means for State and Local Governments

Source: Governing the States and Localities

 

GOVERNING has posted an article authored by staff writer Ryan Honeywell -- What the Federal Shutdown Means for State and Local Governments – on its website. GOVERNING staff writers Liz Farmer and J.B. Wogan contributed to this report.

The article introduces its analysis by noting that “State and local government budget experts say the first federal government shutdown in 17 years shouldn't be too disruptive to their operations in the short-term, but if it lasts more than a week, they could start to encounter serious challenges.”

The text of the report is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.governing.com/blogs/fedwatch/gov-what-a-federal-shutdown-means-for-state-and-local-governments.html
.

Public figure’s complaint that false and defamatory statements were made about him dismissed as the record showed that the statements were true

Public figure’s complaint that false and defamatory statements were made about him dismissed as the record showed that the statements were true

2013 NY Slip Op 06083, Appellate Division, First Department

Plaintiff, a public figure [Figure], alleged that a New York City police detective “made false and defamatory statements about him to the press.” Figure sued but his petition was dismissed by Supreme Court.

In response to Figure’s appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, explaining that “The record demonstrates that all of the statements attributed to [the police detective] about [Figure] were true, namely, that [Figure] was being sought for questioning; that repeated efforts to locate [Figure] had been unsuccessful; and that the case involved an allegation of rape.

The Appellate Division then observed that “the fact that these truths may have been fatal to [Figure’s] bid for public office have no bearing on whether they were legally defamatory.”

Moreover, said the Appellate Division, Figure “failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged statements were actuated by ill will.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_06083.htm
.

Suspension of Federal Government Services -- U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges

Suspension of Federal Government Services -- U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges 

Administrative Order on Status of Hearings & Deadlines in Cases Pending Before the United States Department of Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges:

 

The Chief Administrative Law Judge has issued a general order regarding the status of hearings and case related deadlines during the suspension of Federal government services.  

The order is posted on the Internet at:

In the Matter of Suspension of Government Operations During Lapse in Federal Funding, 

[USDL 2014-MIS-1 (Oct. 1, 2013]

Termination of General Municipal Law §207-a benefits

Termination of General Municipal Law §207-a benefits

2013 NY Slip Op 06162, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

A firefighter claimed that he suffered an injury to his neck and that as a result he was disabled from work. He was granted benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-a. 

The City's Fire and Police Board then appointed a hearing officer and initiated administrative proceedings to determine if the firefighter’s §207-a benefits should be terminated. Ultimately the Hearing Officer's determined that firefighter's disability “was not causally related to his job duties” and recommended that the firefighter's §207-a benefits should be discontinued.

The Board adopted the findings and recommendation of the Hearing Officer and terminated the firefighter's §207-a benefits and the firefighter initiated an Article 78 action seeking a court order vacating the Board's decision.

The Appellate Division dismissed the firefighter’s challenge to the Board’s action, holding that the hearing officer’s determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Noting that the firefighter had presented evidence to support his claim that he had suffered a injury in the course of his performing his duties during the administrative hearing, the Appellate Division explained that "[t]he Hearing Officer was entitled to weigh the parties' conflicting medical evidence and to assess the credibility of witnesses, and [courts]  may not weigh the evidence or reject [the Hearing Officer's] choice where the evidence is conflicting and room for a choice exists.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_06162.htm

=============================

General Municipal Law§§ 207-a and 207-c - Disability Leave for fire, police and other public sector personnel - a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering New York State's General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and providing benefits thereunder. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/3916.html

.

Filing an application with the court to have a local public official removed from his or her public office

Filing an application with the Appellate Division to have a local public official removed from his or her public office
2013 NY Slip Op 06141, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Public Officers Law §36 permits a “citizen resident” of a town, village, improvement district or fire district to file an application seeking the removal of an officer of the jurisdiction, other than a justice of the peace, for alleged “… misconduct, maladministration, malfeasance or malversation in office” with the Appellate Division of Supreme Court.* The term maladministration is used to describe one's performing official duties corruptly or inefficiently, the term malfeasance refers to performing one's official duties inadequately or poorly, and the term malversation refers to the misuse of public or other funds while holding public office.

A member of the Town Council [Member A] initiated a proceeding in the Appellate Division pursuant to Public Officers Law §36 seeking the removal of another member of the Town Council [Member B] from office for alleged “wrongdoing.” Member A’s petition alleged instances of conflicts of interest and self-dealing on the part of Member B, an attorney with a legal practice in the Town.** 

1. Member A alleged that Member B filed a Notice of Claim against the town on behalf of a legal client after taking office, that Member B was the subject of a complaint of harassment filed by a town employee and that Member B “repeatedly [filing] frivolous actions" against the Town.

The Appellate Division held the Member B “conclusively refuted” all of Member A’s allegations, and that Member A failed to present evidence to the contrary sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact.

.

2. Member A alleged that Member B had "repeatedly appeared" in the Town's Justice Court on behalf of his clients..

Member B, said the court, “conclusively refuted that allegation” by submitting an affidavit by a Town Justice who affirmed that Member B had not appeared in the Town's Justice Court "after taking his elected position." Member A, said the court, “failed to present any evidence to the contrary.”

3. Member A alleged that Member B circulated an email to a Town employee facing disciplinary charges.

The Appellate Division held that here was no indication that the e-mail constituted "confidential correspondence" that Member B should not have sent to that Town employee.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division dismissed Member A’s petition.

* §36 requires that the officer be notified of the fact that an application seeking his or her removal, together with a copy of the allegations, to be served on the official at least eight days prior to the filing of the application with the court.

** In Jones v Filkins, 238 AD2d 954, the Appellate Division indicated that removal of an individual from public office is appropriate in situations involving “self-dealing, corrupt activities, conflict of interest, moral turpitude, intentional wrongdoing or violation of a public trust

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_06141.htm
.