Appealing the denial of an application for General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits

Appealing the denial of an application for General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits
Lowther v County of Rockland, 2014 NY Slip Op 08018, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Rockland County Sheriff denied Deputy Sheriff Charles Lowther’s application for disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c. A hearing officer confirmed the Sheriff’s determination and Lowther appealed the arbitrator’s ruling.

The Appellate Division sustained the arbitrator’s decision and dismissed Lowther ’s appeal “on the merits.”

As a procedural matter, the court first explained that it would treat this appeal as one that had been transferred here by the Supreme Court and would review the administrative determination de novo *

The standard of review in an administrative determination made after a hearing is limited to the Appellate Division's considering whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence. The test of whether an administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence is whether, on the record, a reasonable person might have made the findings and conclusions made by the administrative agency.

The Appellate Division then observed that in order to be eligible for disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c, a covered municipal employee must prove a direct causal relationship between his or her job duties and the resulting alleged illness or injury. In this instance the court found that the arbitrator's determination that Lowther was not entitled to benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

In contrast, where an administrative body renders a determination without holding a hearing, the appropriate standard of review is whether the determination was arbitrary and capricious or lacking a rational basis, which questions are to be initially addressed in Supreme Court.

* When a petition raises a question of whether an administrative determination made after a hearing is supported by substantial evidence, the proceeding should be transferred from the Supreme Court to the Appellate Division to address that issue.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_08018.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 General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and providing benefits thereunder. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/3916.html

________________________

Tenured teachers and school administrators facing disciplinary action typically have the right to elect the Education Law §3020-a.disciplinary procedure in lieu of a contract disciplinary procedure

Tenured teachers and school administrators facing disciplinary action typically have the right to elect the Education Law §3020-a.disciplinary procedure in lieu of a contract disciplinary procedure

Kilduff v Rochester City Sch. Dist., 2014 NY Slip Op 08056, Court of Appeals

The Rochester City School District notified Roseann Kilduff, a tenured school social worker,that she was to be suspended for 30 days without pay for certain alleged misconduct. In response to Kilduff’s written request for a hearing pursuant to Education Law §3020-a., the School District advised her that she was not entitled to have this disciplinary action processed pursuant to §3020-a  but could challenge the School District’s disciplinary determination by availing herself of the disciplinary grievance procedures set out in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the School District and the Rochester Teachers Association.

The CBA provided, in relevant part, that "Except as provided elsewhere in this Section, any disciplinary action imposed upon any eligible teacher may be processed as a grievance and arbitration procedure.”*

The Court of Appeals, affirming a ruling by the Appellate Division, said that §3020(1)** of the Education Law, as amended, requires that all CBAs becoming effective on or after September 1, 1994, permit eligible employees facing discipline the right to elect the disciplinary review process provided by Education Law §3020-a.notwithstanding a provision in the CBA to the contrary. 

The Appellate Division had explained that inasmuch as the controlling CBA took effect in 2006, Kilduff, “in the court's view,” had the right pursuant to Education Law §3020(1) to choose the §3020-a disciplinary procedure in lieu any alternative grievance procedure contained in the CBA. Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, Rochester's failure to honor Kilduff’s request, it was required by law to respect, mandated the annulment of the disciplinary action taken against her.

In the words of the Court of Appeals, “the statute unambiguously provides that when a CBA is altered by renegotiation or takes effect on or after September 1, 1994, it must permit tenured employees to elect §3020-a's discipline review procedures, notwithstanding the availability of alternative, CBA-prescribed procedures.”

The court said that while the statute would trump a CBA provision effective on or after September 1, 1994 that relegated a tenured employee exclusively to a non-statutory discipline procedure, “we perceive no reason to conclude that the present CBA in fact does that. It provides merely that a disciplinary action ‘may,’ not that it ‘must,’ be processed in accordance with the agreement's grievance and arbitration provisions which were retained unaltered in the parties' subsequent CBAs.”

Further, in a footnote the majority observed that while the CBA required the §3020-a process where the discharge of a tenured employee was sought, this does not mean, as the School District contended, that it precludes a tenured employee from electing such process where less serious discipline was at issue, in this instance a 30-day suspension without pay.

Accordingly, the court in this 4 to 3 ruling, Judge Smith dissenting in an opinion in which Judges Read and Pigott concur, held that the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

It should be noted that with respect to eligible employees in the classified service, §76.4 of the Civil Service Law, in pertinent part, provides that §§75 and 76 of the Civil Service Law “… may be supplemented, modified or replaced by agreements negotiated between the state and an employee organization pursuant to article fourteen of this chapter [emphasis supplied]. Where such sections are so supplemented, modified or replaced, any employee against whom charges have been preferred prior to the effective date of such supplementation, modification or replacement shall continue to be subject to the provisions of such sections as in effect on the date such charges were preferred”.

* The Court of Appeals noted that a subsequent subsection of the CBA provided that “no eligible teacher may be discharged without the process prescribed in Education Law §§3020 and 3020-a..”

** The portion of Education Law §3020(1) relevant to the issues raised in this action states: "No person enjoying the benefits of tenure shall be disciplined or removed during a term of employment except for just cause and in accordance with the procedures specified in section three thousand twenty-a of this article or in accordance with alternate disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement covering his or her terms and conditions of employment that was effective on or before September first, nineteen hundred ninety-four and has been unaltered by renegotiation, or in accordance with alternative disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement covering his or her terms and conditions of employment that becomes effective on or after September first, nineteen hundred ninety-four; provided, however, that any such alternate disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement that becomes effective on or after September first, nineteen hundred ninety-four, must provide for the written election by the employee of either the procedures specified in such section three thousand twenty-a or the alternative disciplinary procedures contained in the collective bargaining agreement" (emphasis by the Court).

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_08056.htm

 __________________________ 

The Discipline Book, - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State set out in a 2100+ page e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

__________________________

An individual serving in a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position within the meaning of Labor Law §565(2)(e) is ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits

An individual serving in a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position within the meaning of Labor Law §565(2)(e) is ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits

Matter of Birnbaum (Commissioner of Labor), 2014 NY Slip Op 07719, Appellate Division, Third Department

Julian R. Birnbaumserved as the Deputy Commissioner for Division Initiated Investigations and Complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) in a “nontenured position classified as management/confidential and served at the discretion of the Commissioner of Human Rights as well as the Governor.

When Birnbaum’s employment ended, he applied for unemployment insurance benefits.

The Department of Labor issued an initial determination finding that Birnbaum was not entitled to receive benefits because his base period employment was in a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position that was excluded under Labor Law §565(2)(e).

An Administrative Law Judge, however, overruled the initial determination and found that Birnbaumwas entitled to receive benefits. On appeal, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board rescinded the ALJ's decision and remanded the matter for another hearing to further develop the record. The resulted in the ALJ‘s sustaining the Department of Labor’s initial determination, which determination was subsequently upheld by the Board Birnbaum appealed the Board’s ruling.

The Appellate Division sustained the Board’s decision, explaining that for purposes of determining a claimant's eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, Labor Law §565(2)(e) excludes from employment "services rendered for a governmental entity by . . . a person in a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position." Whether this exclusion applies typically presents a mixed question of law and fact, and the Board's determination in this regard will be upheld if it has a rational basis.

According to the decision, Birnbaum’s position had three primary functions: (1) to investigate patterns of discrimination involving violations of the Human Rights Law appropriate for filing an administrative complaint by DHR, (2) to oversee the prosecution of complaints brought on behalf of individuals, and (3) to evaluate DHR's issuance of exemptions for certain housing providers and, in addition, participated in other agency functions.

The Appellate Division noted that Birnbaum reported directly to the Commissioner, had meetings with the Commissioner on a variety of matters and made recommendations on the implementation of agency policies. Although Birnbaum did not independently establish agency policy, he was involved in the process and his advice was solicited by the Commissioner.

Under these circumstances, said the court, there is a rational basis for the Board's decision that Birnbaum held a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position excluded under Labor Law §565(2)(e).

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_07719.htm

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli releases municipal audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli releases municipal audits

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced his office completed audits of the municipalities listed below. Cick on text highlighted in color  to access the full report

Town of Berkshire – Town Clerk (Tioga County)
The town clerk did not properly safeguard taxpayer funds. As a result, auditors could not determine if the clerk is receiving, recording, depositing, disbursing and reporting all the money owed to the town and/or paid to her. In addition, the clerk and code enforcement officer failed to compare the money received for building permits with the permits actually issued.

Bethlehem Public Library – Selected Cash Receipts (Albany County)
The board has established adequate internal controls for processing over-the-counter cash receipts to ensure that all cash collections are properly accounted for and deposited timely and intact. These controls include policies and procedures that provide guidance to the library staff involved in the cash collection process. The procedures also adequately segregate duties within the cash collection process to ensure that no one individual controls all phases of a transaction.

Town of Cherry Valley – Budget Review (Otsego County)
The significant revenue and expenditure projections in the preliminary budget are reasonable, except for the estimated revenues from Federal Emergency Management Agency reimbursements. Although the budget does slightly raise taxes for all funds, town officials did not include a contingency amount in the budget, which would provide for anticipated events and could help to improve the town’s financial position. The town has adopted a local law to override the tax levy limit in 2015.

City of Cohoes – Purchasing (Albany County)
Because city officials did not consistently seek appropriate competition for purchases, they cannot assure taxpayers that they are obtaining the best price possible, as well as the desired quality and quantity, for goods and services. Auditors found the city made purchases totaling $145,759 from three vendors without using competitive bidding or state contract pricing, as required by law.

Town of Deerpark – Budget Review (Orange County)
The revenue and expenditure projections in the proposed budget are reasonable. The town’s preliminary budget complies with the property tax levy limit.

Town of Deposit – Budget Review (Broome County)
The significant revenue and expenditure projections in the proposed budget are reasonable. Additionally, town officials have increased the real property tax levy for the general fund and implemented cost saving measures in the highway funds to help address the town’s declining financial condition. The town has adopted a local law to override the tax levy limit in 2015.

East Aurora Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. – Controls Over Financial Activities (Erie County)
The treasurer did not prepare adequate monthly reports. Auditors found the treasurer’s monthly financial reports consisted of a listing of department bank account balances. However, the department bylaws require the treasurer to keep a complete record of all funds received and disbursed and furnish a report showing this activity at the department’s regular meetings.

Town of East Hampton – Budget Review (Suffolk County)
The significant revenue and expenditure projections in the tentative budget are reasonable. The town’s 2015 tentative budget complies with the property tax cap levy limit.

Town of Edinburg – Justice Court Operations (Saratoga County)
The town justice did not maintain complete and accurate accounting records. Bank reconciliations, month-end accountabilities and reports submitted to the state Justice Court Fund were not accurate. Also, the justice did not maintain adequate case files and did not take appropriate action to ensure that fines and fees were collected in a timely manner.

Village of Fort Ann – Financial Condition (Washington County)
The village board consistently appropriated excessive amounts of fund balance in the general fund to finance operations which caused this fund to be in fiscal stress at the end of the 2013-14 fiscal year. The board also overestimated expenditures for the water and sewer funds with the intention of increasing the levels of fund balance to guard against unforeseen repairs and finance future capital costs.

Town of Islip Industrial Development Agency – Controls Over Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) (Suffolk County)
The agency’s process for billing, collecting and recording of PILOTs was efficient and payments were accurately billed and collected. However, PILOT payments were not always distributed to affected taxing jurisdictions within 30 days, as required by law.

Town of Laurens – Budget Review (Otsego County)
The significant revenue and expenditure projections in the tentative budget are reasonable. To address fiscal concerns, the board has proposed real property tax levy increases in the general and highway town-wide funds. However, these increases alone may not fully address the town’s potential for fiscal stress. The town’s tentative budget complies with the property tax levy limit.

Volunteer Firemen’s Benevolent Association of North Tonawanda – Foreign Fire Insurance Tax Moneys (Niagara County)
The board did not ensure that foreign fire insurance tax moneys were spent in accordance with the special act that created the association. Although the 106 payments made during 2013 totaling $49,545 were supported with itemized claims, it is unclear if they were all proper because the association bylaws were not adequately detailed regarding allowable expenditures.

Town of Ogden – Financial Management and Justice Court (Monroe County)
Town officials have not developed adequate policies, procedures or financial plans to govern budgeting practices and the amount of unexpended surplus funds to maintain. The board has repeatedly adopted budgets with unrealistic estimates of revenues, expenditures and the amount of fund balance that would be used. Therefore, the town has levied more real property taxes than necessary and accumulated a significant amount of unexpended surplus funds.


Town of Otsego – Financial Condition (Otsego County)
The budgets for the town’s four operating funds varied significantly from the actual results each year. Over a four-year period, auditors found each of the funds’ estimates generally varied from actual results. For example, the general town-wide and highway part-town funds overestimated revenues and expenditures; the general part-town fund underestimated revenues and overestimated expenditures; and the highway town-wide fund underestimated both revenues and expenditures.

Town of Sardinia – Tax Relief Rebate Program (Erie County)
Auditors reviewed the local law adopted by the town board establishing a tax relief rebate program and a sample of tax rebates issued during the 2013 fiscal year. Because the State Constitution prohibits towns from loaning or giving money to any private corporation or person, including property owners and residents, the town lacked authority to issue the tax refunds to property owners without a special act from the State Legislature.

Village of Schuylerville – Procurement (Saratoga County)
Village officials did not always use competitive procedures for the procurement of goods and services as required by law. Auditors found a contract for public work for $51,150 and two equipment purchase contracts for $50,000 and $109,970 that were not competitively bid. As a result, the village may have incurred higher costs than necessary.

Town of Sidney – Budget Review (Delaware County)
The significant revenue and expenditure projections in the preliminary budget are reasonable. However, the town’s projections for rental income in the hospital fund were not based on amounts expected to be received according to current lease agreements. The town’s preliminary budget complies with the property tax levy limit.

Sidney Fire Department and Related Fire Companies – Financial Activities (Delaware County)
The board did not ensure that cash disbursements and receipts were properly accounted for because it did not implement proper internal controls over the department and the three companies. Auditors found that 134 of the department’s and companies’ expenditures totaling $47,093 lacked sufficient support and/or board approval to verify that they were appropriate.

Slingerlands Fire District – Professional Services (Albany County)
District officials did not obtain quotes or requests for proposals for most professional services during the audit period. The district made payments to eight professional service vendors totaling $153,238 for six types of services. In 2013, the cost of these services consisted of $84,584 for insurance coverage, $11,086 for legal services, $10,675 for physician services, $7,800 for investment management services, $5,000 for external audit services and $650 for engineering services.

Town of Stony Point – Claims Processing and Purchasing (Rockland County)
The town’s claims processing policies and procedures are adequate. Board members approve the payment of claims against the town each month by reviewing and signing an abstract listing current claims for goods and services provided.

A public entity may have liability for damages resulting from an accident if it has a “special relationship” with the injured party

A public entity may have liability for damages resulting from an accident if it has a “special relationship” with the injured party

Delanoy v City of White Plains, 2014 NY Slip Op 07615, Appellate Division, Second Department

Joseph J. Delanoy, Jr sued the City of White Plains seeking to recover damages for personal injuries.

The jury issued a verdict on the issue of liability finding White Plains 58% at fault in the happening of the accident. The City appealed the jury’s finding that there was a “special relationship” and asked the Appellate Division to set aside the verdict on the issue of liability or, in the alternative, to set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

The Appellate Division denied the City’s appeal.

The court held that there a “special relationship” between the City of White Plains and Delanoy was created when the City's plumbing inspector directed Delanoy to perform a clearly unsafe air pressure test.

The Appellate Division explained that the Court of Appeals has recognized three situations in which a duty may arise by way of a special relationship between a public entity and a plaintiff:

"(1) the plaintiff belonged to a class for whose benefit a statute was enacted;

“(2) the government entity voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally; or

“(3) the municipality took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition"

In this instance only the third situation was at issue, i.e.: Did the City take positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition?

Notwithstanding the City’s arguments to the contrary, the Appellate Division ruled that the jury's determination that the City and its inspector took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition which gave rise to Delanoy’s injuries was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and, thus, was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Neither, said the court, was the jury's determination that the inspector was performing ministerial acts rather than discretionary acts contrary to the weight of the evidence.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_07615.htm