Another "Black Friday" opportunity – New York State to auction two seized luxury cars at December 1, 2015 vehicle and equipment auction in Albany

Another "Black Friday" opportunity – New York State to auction two seized luxury cars at December 1, 2015 vehicle and equipment auction in Albany
Source: NYS Office of General Services

The New York State Office of General Services has added a 2013 Mercedes-Benz G63 AMG and a 2012 Audi A7 Prestige Quattro to the list of items the public can bid on at a surplus vehicle, highway equipment, and miscellaneous property auction scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, December 1 at the Harriman State Office Building Campus in Albany. Items being sold will be available for inspection starting at 8:30 a.m. on the day of the auction.

The Mercedes, with approximately 721 miles on its odometer, and the Audi, with approximately 14,426 miles on it, were seized by the Attorney General’s Office in 2013 following an investigation into a $3.2 million Medicaid fraud case in Brooklyn. Proceeds from the sale of the two cars will be transferred to the Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Unit.

This isn’t the first time OGS has sold seized items. In the summer of 2014, several pieces of men’s jewelry, including a Rolex watch, were sold on the NYSStore.com eBay site after they were confiscated from a suspected drug trafficker on Staten Island. Later that year, a 1971 Camaro that was reported stolen in 1976 and was seized by New York Statewas among vehicles sold at a state surplus vehicle auction in Poughkeepsie.

For a listing of New York Stateauctions to be held in the future, go to: https://www.nysstore.com/. For information on specific items and terms of sale, email state.surplus@ogs.ny.gov, or call (518) 457-6335.

Handbooks focusing on New York State and Municipal Public Personnel Law

Handbooks focusing on New York State and Municipal Public Personnel Law

The Discipline Book- A 458 page guide focusing on New York State laws, rules, regulations, disciplinary grievances procedures set out in collective bargaining agreements and selected court and administrative decisions concerning disciplinary actions involving state and municipal public officers and employees. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/5215.html

A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances - a 618-page volume focusing on New York State court and administrative decisions addressing an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/7401.html

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant New York State laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions involving layoff and related matters. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/5216.html

Disability Leave for fire, police and other public sector personnel - a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering General Municipal Law §§207-a/207-c and other laws, rules, regulations and court decisions addressing disability and similar leaves absence. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/3916.html

Summaries of recent decisions posted on the Internet by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH]

Summaries of recent decisions posted on the Internet by the New York CityOffice of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] 
Source: NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings
Click on text highlighted in color to access the text of the decision. 


OATH Administrative Law Judge denies employer’s motion to strike the testimony of two witnesses called by the accused

NYC Department of Corrections v Williams, OATH Index No. 2223/15

In this hearing conducted pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, OATH Administrative Law Judge John B. Spooner denied a motion made by counsel for the NYC Department of Corrections to strike the testimony of two of the employees witnesses on the grounds that there was an indication of collusion.

The attorney said that the two witnesses worked in the same facility and were supervised by the employee and were jointly interviewed by the employee's counsel.

The employee’s counsel, on the other hand, described the pre-trial meeting as consisting of a five-minute conversation in which counsel informed the witnesses about why they were present and asked them to simply testify as to what they remembered about the incident.

Under the circumstances, Judge Spooner explained, there was virtually no possibility that the witnesses would alter their testimony to match one another as they testified about different stages of the charged incident. Further, said Judge Spooner, the witnesses’ working relationship with the employee who was the target of the disciplinary action, while a proper issue to consider when assessing credibility, did not warrant precluding their testimony entirely.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/15_cases/15-2223.pdf

Computer specialist charged with misconduct, including answering his phone “in a robotic voice” 

OATH Index No. 2231/15

OATH Administrative Law Judge Ingrid M. Addison found that Ronald Dillon,* a computer specialist assigned to the IT Help Desk, answered the phone in a robotic voice on two occasions, created and abandoned service desk requests, failed to timely resolve tickets, misdirected callers, inaccurately re-classified a ticket and failed to respond to supervisor inquiries.

Dillon was also alleged to have” force-closed the employer’s acceptable use policy” on many occasions, thereby circumventing the acceptance of the agreement.

Judge Addison found the Department's proposed penalty, termination of Dillion’s employment, to be excessive and she recommended a thirty day suspension without pay.

Posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/15_cases/15-2231.pdf 

* See, also, Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Dillon, OATH Index No. 108/14, posted on the Internet at http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/14-108.pdf, involving similar charges of misconduct filed against Dillon.

An employee who refused to report to her new work location found guilty of being absent without leave [AWOL]

OATH Index No. 1512/15

A New York City Sanitation Enforcement Agent (SEA) was charged with being AWOL when she refused to report to a new work location. The Department introduced a plan to reassign SEAs as an anti-corruption effort. SEAs were required to list three different work locations on a form or they could request an interview for personal hardship consideration.

The SEA, who was assigned in Brooklyn, did neither. When she was ordered to report to her new location in the Bronxshe refused to do so. At hearing the SEA argued that her seniority status entitled her to the work assignment she wanted in Brooklyn.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Susan J. Pogoda disagreed and sustained the AWOL charge filed against the employee. The assignment of personnel is within the employer's discretion and the SEA did not show that the transfer would present an imminent threat to her health or to her safety.

Taking into consideration the SEA's prior disciplinary record, Judge Pogoda recommended termination of her employment with the Department.   

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/15_cases/15-1512.pdf

 ________________

A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances - a 618-page volume focusing on New York State court and administrative decisions addressing an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html

 ________________

If §75 charges of misconduct "would, if proved in a court of law constitute a crime,” the 18-month statute of limitations for bringing such charges does not apply

If §75 charges of misconduct "would, if proved in a court of law constitute a crime,” the 18-month statute of limitations for bringing such charges does not apply
Hanlon v New York State Police, 2015 NY Slip Op 08315, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Christian Hanlon was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to Civil Service Law §75. Found guilty following an administrative disciplinary hearing held pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, the appointing authority imposed the penalty of dismissal of Hanlon’s  employment as a State Trooper.

Hanlon then commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking a court order annulling  the determination finding him guilty of the disciplinary charges and terminating his employment, contending that “certain charges were time-barred pursuant to Civil Service Law §75(4).”

The Appellate Division disagreed, explaining that while a §75 disciplinary action must be commenced within 18 months of the occurrence of the "alleged incompetency or misconduct complained of," if the misconduct charged "would, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime," the 18-month limitation does not apply.*

Here, said the court, the charges alleged conduct that would, if proved in a court of law, constitute the crime of official misconduct and thus they are not time-barred.**

The court also found that appointing authority’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and the penalty imposed by the appointing authority, dismissal, was not shocking to one's sense of fairness.

* In the case of a state employee who is designated managerial or confidential pursuant to Article 14 of Civil Service Law charges of incompetency or misconduct must be brought within one year after the occurrence of the alleged incompetency or misconduct complained of and described in the charges, unless the incompetency or misconduct complained of and described in the charges would, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime.

** §195.00 of the Penal Law provides that "a public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: [1] He [or she] commits an act relating to his [or her] office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his [or her] official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized; or [2] He [or she] knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him [or her] by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of [his or her] office. Official misconduct is a class A misdemeanor."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_08315.htm

________________

A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances - a 618-page volume focusing on New York State court and administrative decisions addressing an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/7401.html

________________

Taxpayers born before July 1, 1945 may be required to take distributions from their IRA and similar plans no later than December 31, 2015 to avoid penalties

Taxpayers born before July 1, 1945may be required to take distributions from their IRA and similar plans no later than December 31, 2015 to avoid penalties

The Internal Revenue Service has posted a reminder indicating that taxpayers born before July 1, 1945 generally must receive payments from their IRA and similar deferred compensation plans at least equal to their “required minimum distribution" (RMD) from IRAs and workplace retirement plans by Dec. 31, 2015. Failure to do so may have tax consequences.

Employees of public schools and certain tax-exempt organizations participating in a §403(b) plan, for example employees of the State University of New York, the community colleges and the Board of Higher Education of the City of New York participating in a “Special Annuity Plan” pursuant to Article 8-C of the Education Law, having accruals before 1987 should check with their employer, plan administrator or provider to see how to treat these accruals.

The IRS advisory is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Tax-Preparedness-Series:-Most-Retirees-Need-to-Take-Required-Retirement-Plan-Distributions-by-Dec.-31