Complying with procedural requirements in an appeal to the Commissioner of Education critical to the Commissioner’s considering the merits of the appeal

Complying with procedural requirements in an appeal to the Commissioner of Education critical to the Commissioner’s considering the merits of the appeal

Matter of the Board of Education of the Oceanside Union Free School District

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 16,907

In this appeal the Petitioners asked the Commissioner of Education to remove each of the seven board members of the Board of Education of the Oceanside Union Free School District [Board] for alleged violations of School Board policies, breaches of their fiduciary duties as members of the Board, and of having conflicts of interest.  

The Commissioner addressed a number of significant procedural defects and critical jurisdictional issues in adjudication this appeal.

Although Petitioners did not provide an affidavit of service establishing service upon the Board, the affidavits of the district clerk indicated that she had accepted service on behalf of the Board. As there was no assertion that the appeal should be dismissed as to the Board for lack of proper service, the Commissioner declined to dismiss the appeal with respect to allegations against the Board.

Such was not the case, however, with respect to the Commissioner exercising jurisdiction over the individual members of the Board. Petitioners had failed to name any board member in the caption of the notice of petition or petition. Petitioners' failure to name each such board members constituted a failure to properly join as respondents each individual board member whose removal was sought, warranting dismissal of the application as against each such Board member. The Commissioner explained that “It is the notice of petition which alerts a party that he or she is required to appear and answer the allegations contained in the petition.”

Another defect noted by the Commissioner: Petitioners failed to personally serve any individual board members with a copy of the petition and notice of petition.

Service of pleadings and supporting papers set out in 8 NYCRR §275.8(a), of the Commissioner’s regulations, are applicable to proceedings seeking the removal of a school officer  [see 8 NYCRR §277.1] They provide, in pertinent part, that “A copy of the petition, together with all of petitioner’s affidavits, exhibits, and other supporting papers, except a memorandum of law or affidavit in support of a reply, shall be personally served upon each named respondent, or, if a named respondent cannot be found upon diligent search, by delivering and leaving the same at respondent’s residence with some person of suitable age and discretion ... or as otherwise directed by the Commissioner.”

Although the record contained seven affidavits of service indicating that seven copies of the petition in this matter were served on the district clerk in an attempt to effectuate service on each of the seven individual board members, the affidavit of the district clerk stated that she accepted service only on behalf of the board and that she was not authorized to accept service on behalf of the individual board members. 

Although Petitioners submitted an affidavit from their process server stating that the district clerk gave “specific assurance” that she was authorized to accept service on behalf of the individual board members, in a sur-reply the School District submitted a second affidavit from the district clerk indicating that she never informed the process server that she was authorized to accept service on behalf of the individual board members. 

As in an appeal to the Commissioner the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief, the Commissioner said that in the light of the conflicting affidavits, she could not conclude that there was valid service on the individual board members. Further, said the Commissioner, the record does not indicate that any request for "alternate service" was made by the Petitioners.

As to the individual board members, as they were not personally served, the applications for their removal was denied. Notwithstanding this, if service upon the individual board members is deemed defective, the Commissioner said that she could “proceed with this petition as against the Board as an entity pursuant to Education Law §[310]” and as noted above, she declined to dismiss Petitioners’ appeal with respect to allegations against the Board.

As to the School District’s claim that Petitioners’ appeal should be dismissed as untimely as it was commenced more than 30 days after the actions to which Petitioners object, and Petitioners acknowledge that their appeal is untimely, Petitioners argued that “they were not advised that they had the right to appeal [the Board’s] determination and that they filed multiple complaints with Office of Civil Rights Compliance [OCR], erroneously believing that OCR was the only remaining option to address [the Board’s] alleged misconduct.  They then argued that “as pro se litigants, they are entitled to a liberal interpretation of the Commissioner’s regulations.”* 

The Commissioner commented that “except in unusual circumstances,” ignorance of the appeal process does not afford a sufficient basis to excuse a delay in commencing an appeal and that the record contains no evidence that any unusual circumstances are present here.

Thus, ruled the Commissioner, “the appeal must be dismissed as untimely.”

Additionally, Petitioners contended that the Board’s was made in retaliation for Petitioners’ earlier complaint to the Office of Special Education Quality Assurance [SEQA], which, said the Commissioner, raised the identical issues and incidents in a complaint filed with OCR. OCR determined that the “district proffered a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason” for the School District's decision and that “the proffered reason was not a pretext for retaliation because the district’s actions were consistent with its policies.” Accordingly, the Commissioner ruled that having chosen that forum in which to litigate their claims, Petitioners have made an election of remedies and may not relitigate the same issues in a proceeding instituted pursuant to §310 of the Education Law.

Finally, the Commissioner noted that, as stated above, in an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief.  

In addition to their request for removal of the board members, discussed above, Petitioners sought only that “The Commissioner exercise authority to review and approve all manner of business proposed by the Board until such time as the Commissioner is satisfied that the board is acting rationally and prudently and fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities to protect public assets and promote the educational needs of the District....”

However, an appeal to the Commissioner is appellate in nature and does not provide for investigations, nor does the Commissioner have the authority to act as an overseer over all board business or to appoint such an overseer with the power to substitute his or her opinion and determination for that of the board.

* On this point the Commissioner noted that Petitioners are both practicing attorneys and thus are held to a higher standard than non-attorney pro se litigants.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume55/d16907

Absent a statutory or negotiated administrative hearing procedure, an appointing authority may delegate decision-making authority to the hearing officer

Absent a statutory or negotiated administrative hearing procedure, an appointing authority may delegate decision-making authority to the hearing officer

McKay v Village of Endicott, 2016 NY Slip Op 04085, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Village of Endicott had been paying Firefighter Joseph W. McKay General Municipal Law §207-a(1)* benefits while he was unable to work after he had suffered an "on the job" injury to his lower back.

In March 2010, McKay underwent  surgery. The Village told McKay that because his "neck condition" was "not related to the work injury," his General Municipal Law §207-a benefits were "terminated." McKay appealed and ultimately the hearing officer appointed by the Village determined that McKay was entitled to GML §207-a(1) benefits because there was a causal relationship linking the lower back injury to the accident and no evidence that McKay’s lower back had improved to the point that, but for the intervening cervical spine injury, he would have been able to return to work as a firefighter.

While that hearing was pending, McKay retired and commenced receiving performance of duty disability retirement benefits and the Village discontinued McKay’s GML §207-a(1) benefits. In November 2011, at the Village's request, McKay applied for supplemental benefits authorized by GML §207-a(2).**

In March 2012, McKay was examined by an orthopedist retained by the Village. The orthopedist opined that McKay’s 2008 back injury "would not have prohibited [him] from performing his duties as a firefighter and EMT." In May 2012, the Village denied McKay's "application" for GML §207-a(2) benefits. McKay then commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Village’s determination. Supreme Court “partially granted [McKay’s petition] finding that the Village could not terminate his General Municipal Law §207-a benefits without a hearing. The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court’s ruling.***

In August 2012, the Mayor of the Village wrote to the Hearing Officer to confirm his appointment "in the [GML] §207-a(2) appeal case." At the subsequent 2013 hearing to consider McKay's November 2011 application for §207-a(2) benefits, the parties testified and in February 2014, the Hearing Officer issued a decision in which he characterizing the "issue presented" to be whether McKay was entitled to General Municipal Law §207-a(2) benefits as a result of the April 2008 lower back injury.

Noting that he was obligated to "uphold" the Village's determination to deny the benefits as long as it was supported by substantial evidence, the Hearing Officer issued "findings" that McKay was entitled to General Municipal Law §207-a(2) benefits based on the "volume of medical evidence" that supported the conclusion that McKay  [1] was "permanently incapacitated from performing his duties, [2] that his disability [was] permanent, and [3] that his disability [was] causally related to the performance of his duties."

Specifically, the Hearing Officer "determin[ed] that [McKay's] workplace injury on April 8, 2008 [was] the cause of his permanent inability to work." The Mayor, however, rejected the Hearing Officer's awarding McKay GML §207-a(2) benefits, finding that substantial evidence supported the Village's May 2012 determination denying McKay with such benefits.

McKay then commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking a court order annulling the Mayor's determination. Supreme Court determined that the Village was not bound by Hearing Officer's decision and then transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division said that core issue was whether the Hearing Officer's February 2014 decision was a final and binding determination, noting that "it has long been recognized that . . . General Municipal Law §207-a . . . [was] enacted for the benefit of firefighters . . . who sustain disabling injuries in the line of duty, [and] the statutory provisions are to be liberally construed."

However, said the court, the statute does not set out any administrative procedure for determining a firefighter's entitlement to benefits and a municipality may promulgate or negotiate such a procedure provided that it comports with administrative due process. Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, the initial question presented is what procedure, if any, did the Village promulgatge.

The Appellate Division observed that [1] there was no negotiated procedure in place nor [2] was any written policy that governed the termination of existing General Municipal Law §207-a benefits was introduced at the hearing. Rather, said the court, the record indicated that the Village “simply opted to appoint a hearing officer — first, in 2010 to decide [McKay’s] entitlement to General Municipal Law §207-a(1) benefits, and then, in 2012, to decide [McKay’s] entitlement to General Municipal Law §207-a (2) benefits.”

Considering the record, the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court's initial finding that the Village was not bound by the Hearing Officer's determination was in error. The court explained that contrary to the Village’s argument, without any statutory or negotiated prohibition or direction, the Village was authorized to delegate its decision-making authority to the Hearing Officer.

Further, said the court, that the Mayor did, in fact, appoint the Hearing Officer to make a final determination and not a recommendation "is apparent from the record before us." Neither the 2010 nor the 2012 appointment was in any way qualified so as to limit the respective Hearing Officers to an advisory role, i.e., to make and submit findings of fact and a recommendation to the appointing authority regarding the disposition of these matters.

Referring to its earlier decision in which it determined that the Village could not terminate benefits payable to McKay pursuant to GML §207-a(2) without a hearing, the court said that “Given this procedural due process protection,” it considered such a hearing to be a de novo assessment of whether McKay sustained a permanent disability as a result of the 2008 work incident.

The court then opined that the Hearing Officer's observation that he was required to uphold the Village's decision if that decision was supported by substantial evidence misstated the standard for, as a matter of due process, in this instance it was the Hearing Officer's charge to decide the permanency issue in the first instance based on a fully developed record. The Appellate Division said that the Hearing Officer did so, after assessing the credibility of the witnesses and weighing the testimony. Further, the hearing transcript before the Hearing Officer and the post-hearing submissions further confirmed that neither the Hearing Officer nor the parties considered the Hearing Officer to be serving in an advisory capacity.

As the Mayor elected to "unilaterally and abruptly" change the Hearing Officer's decision to a recommendation, rather than comply with the protocol outlined in the appointment letter, the Appellate Division concluded that the Mayor's February 2014 determinations must be annulled. 

The court then observed that “[i]f dissatisfied with the Hearing Officer's determination, the Village's remedy was to challenge that determination in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding.

* General Municipal Law §207-a(1) provides for the payment of full wages and medical expenses until a disability has ceased.

** General Municipal Law §207-a(2), in pertinent part, provides that [1] the payment of the firefighter’s full amount of regular salary or wages pursuant to §207-a(1) shall be  discontinued upon the firefighter receiving a retirement benefit for disability incurred in performance of duty pursuant to RSSL §363-c and [2]  the employer shall supplement such the disability retirement allowance by paying the firefighter the difference between the amount of such disability retirement allowance and the amount of his or her regular salary or wages, including longevity pay and negotiated salary increases, if any, until such time as the firefighter shall have attained the mandatory service retirement age applicable to him or her or shall have attained the age or performed the period of service specified by applicable law for the termination of his or her service.

*** McKay v Village of Endicott, 113 AD3d 989, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 23 NY3d 1015.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_04085.htm

_____________

The Disability Benefits E-book – 2016 Edition: This 810 page e-book focuses on disability benefits available to officers and employees in public service pursuant to Civil Service Law §§71, 72 and 73, General Municipal Law §207-a and §207-c, the Retirement and Social Security Law, the Workers’ Compensation Law, and similar provisions of law. For more information click on:

http://section207.blogspot.com/

___________________

An individual wishing to withdraw or rescind his or her resignation after delivery to the appointing authority must fully comply with all relevant rules and regulations

An individual wishing to withdraw or rescind his or her resignation after delivery to the appointing authority must fully comply with all relevant rules and regulations

Vaccaro v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 04116, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court granted Gaetano Vaccaro’s Article 78 petition seeking [1] the annulment of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York’s [Board of Education] determination discontinuing Vaccaro’s probationary employment and [2] a declaration that Vaccaro was a tenured teacher at the time his employment as a probationary employment was terminated. Supreme Court also denied the Board of Education’s cross motion to dismiss Vaccaro’s petition.

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court’s ruling “on the law” and dismissed the Article 78 proceeding brought by Vaccaro.

Citing Springer v Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, 121 AD3d 473, affirmed 27 NY3d 102*, the Appellate Division explained that Vaccaro had not complied with the provisions set out in New York City Department of Education's Chancellor's Regulations C-205(28) and C-205(29), which provisions govern with respect to the withdrawal of a resignation by an individual and the restoration of the tenure previously enjoyed by that individual.

As noted in NYPPL’s summary of the Springer decision, while Springer’s position was in the Unclassified Service,** in the event "a permanent employee in a position in the Classified Service*** of the State as the employer resigns from his or her position and subsequently wishes to withdraw his or her resignation he or she must obtain the approval of the appointing authority to do so. Rules for the Classified Service promulgated by the New York State Civil Service Commission, 4 NYCRR 5.3(c) provide that “A resignation may not be withdrawn, cancelled or amended after it is delivered to the appointing authority, without the consent of the appointing authority.

“Further, 4 NYCRR 5.4, Reinstatement following resignation provides, in pertinent part, that a former permanent State employee who has resigned from his or her position may be reinstated without examination within one year of the effective date of the resignation in the position from which he or she resigned, if then vacant. This rule, then further provides that “In an exceptional case, the commission may, for good cause shown and where the interests of the government would be served, waive the provisions of this section to permit the reinstatement of a person to his [or her] former position more than one year after resignation.

“Many local Civil Service Commissions have adopted rules similar to 4 NYCRR 5.4.”

* The Springer decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_02553.htm

** See, generally, Civil Service Law §35.

*** See, generally, Civil Service Law §§40-45

The Vaccaro decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_04116.htm

Imposing a "disciplinary probation period" as part of the penalty or settlement of a disciplinary action

Imposing a "disciplinary probation period" as part of the penalty or settlement of a disciplinary action

Woods v State Univ. of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 04084, Appellate Division, Third Department

The genesis of Woods v State University of New York [SUNY], was Norman Woods being served with a notice of discipline issued in accordance with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement [CBA] negotiated by State and Woods’ collective bargaining organization, the Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. [NYSCOPBA]. In October 2013 the Disciplinary Arbitrator issued an award in which he found Woods guilty of four of the five charges brought against him and imposed a penalty of a fine and, as relevant to this appeal, "a one (1) year probation period."

In June 2014 Woods’ supervisor issued a negative "final" probationary evaluation and on the same day SUNY's director of human resources wrote to Woods to advise him that his "disciplinary probationary appointment" at SUNY was terminated.

In response to NYSCOPBA filing a grievance challenging Woods’ termination from his “disciplinary probation, SUNY's director of employee relations wrote to NYSCOPBA to advise it that Woods had not been disciplined and "returned" the grievance to NYSCOPBA. NYSCOPBA initiated a proceeding seeking to compel arbitration pursuant to CPLR §7503, or, in the alternative, to vacate and annul the termination pursuant to CPLR Article 78. Supreme Court converted the proceeding to one seeking to confirm the award pursuant to CPLR §7511 and directed the parties to seek clarification of the October 2013 arbitration award.

The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court ruling. The court explained while public policy generally favors the resolution of labor disputes through arbitration, not  every dispute is arbitrable. When considering a petition to compel arbitration courts make "two distinct inquiries:" [1] is arbitration of the issue is authorized by the Taylor Law and permitted as a matter of public policy, and, [2] did the parties agreed in the CBA to submit the issue to arbitration.

Although SUNY had contended that Woods had waived the right to pursue arbitration should he be terminated during his disciplinary probationary period, the Appellate Division, conceding that such right may be waived, held that Woods was not a party to a "last chance agreement" reciting a clear and unequivocal waiver of negotiated arbitration procedure set out in the CBA.

Although SUNY contended that “by virtue of the October 2013 arbitration award, [1] Woods was a probationary employee, and [2] the parties did not agree to arbitrate issues regarding the termination of probationary employees,” the Appellate Division ruled that the issue before it was to determine whether there is a "reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA.*

The majority of the Appellate Division held that the CBA provides that "[d]iscipline shall be imposed upon employees otherwise subject to the provisions of §§ 75 and 76 of the Civil Service Law only pursuant to [the contract disciplinary grievance procedure] in lieu of the procedure and remedies prescribed by such sections of the Civil Service Law …." Further, said the majority, it was “mindful that one of the referenced statutes provides that certain employees in the classified civil service who have completed a probationary period of employment may not be disciplined "except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges."

The majority said that it did not find that the cited provision of the CBA “unambiguously excludes" Woods, as an individual serving a disciplinary probationary period, from its coverage and it was for an arbitrator to interpret and apply the CBA, and the court did not have the authority to consider the merits of SUNY's argument.”

Holding that the CBA provision is ambiguous, the majority said that an arbitrator must decide whether it governs Woods' summary dismissal from service during his disciplinary probationary status and Supreme Court should have granted NYSCOPBA's petition seeking to compel arbitration.

Although this was apparently not the situation in Woods v SUNY, disciplinary settlement agreements providing for a “disciplinary probation” typically set out the reason permitting the employee to be summarily terminated from his or her position during his or her “disciplinary probation” period.

Taylor v Cass, 122 A.D.2d 885, illustrates impact of a settlement agreement that included a disciplinary probation component whereby the appointing authority could summarily terminate the employee without any hearing if, in the opinion of his superior, "his job performance was adversely affected by his intoxication on the job during the next six months.” Taylor was terminated during his disciplinary probationary period without a hearing for “failing to give a fair day’s work and sleeping during scheduled working hours.” However, there was no allegation that he had been intoxicated on the job as a reason for his dismissal as a disciplinary probation employee.

Taylor sued, challenging his dismissal and won reinstatement with back salary. The Appellate Division said that Taylor’s dismissal was improper because Taylor was not terminated for the sole reason specified in the settlement: intoxication on the job.

In contrast, in Outley v Upstate Med. Univ., 60 AD3d 1398 [motion for leave to appeal denied,13 NY3d 708], the Appellate Division sustained the summary termination of Joanne Outley, an employee at SUNY’s Upstate Medical Center [UMC], after it was demonstrated that she had violated the terms of her “disciplinary probation.” UMC and Outley entered into a disciplinary settlement agreement that placed her on "disciplinary probation" for a specified period of time and prohibited her taking any unauthorized absences.

The Appellate Division dismissed Outley’s challenge to her termination explaining that that the record established that Outley had violated the settlement agreement by being on an unauthorized absence during her disciplinary probation period, thus providing UMC with a legally sufficient basis for summarily terminating her employment that was neither arbitrary nor capricious. 

Further, said the court, Outley failed to establish that she "was dismissed in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason."

* The decision notes that Judge Rose dissented from the majority opinion.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_04084.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

______________

 

Applicant for performance of duty disability retirement benefits must show that his or her disability was the result of an act of an inmate

Applicant for performance of duty disability retirement benefits must show that his or her disability was the result of an act of an inmate
Traxler v DiNapoli, 2016 NY Slip Op 03949, Appellate Division, Third Department

Sheila Traxler, a correction officer, applied for performance of duty disability retirement benefits alleging that she was permanently incapacitated due to work-related injuries sustained when a self-closing gate struck her after an inmate accidentally let go of it while Traxler was standing in the doorway.

Traxler’s application was initially denied by the Retirement System and she requested a hearing and redetermination. Following the hearing, the Hearing Officer sustained the denial of Traxler’s application for duty disability retirement holding that Traxler "failed to establish that her injuries were the result of an act of an inmate." The Comptroller accepted the findings and conclusions of the Hearing Officer and denied Traxler’s appeal. Traxler appealed the Comptroller's decision.

Citing Retirement and Social Security Law §607-c[a],* the Appellate Division annulled the Comptroller’s decision. The court explained that Traxler bore the burden of demonstrating that the incident in which she sustained her injuries was "the natural and proximate result of any act of any inmate." All that is required, said the court, is that the applicant for duty disability retirement show that his or her injuries “were caused by direct interaction with an inmate."

While Traxler did not believe that the inmate intended to injure her, she was injured as the result of the inmate disobeying Traxler’s instruction to remain where she was standing. Under these circumstances, said the court, there is no evidentiary basis in the record to conclude that [Traxler’s] injuries did not occur contemporaneously with, and flowed directly, naturally and proximately from, the inmate's’ disobedient and affirmative actions.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that Traxler’s injury was a natural and proximate result of an act of an inmate and remitted the matter to the Retirement System “for further proceedings on the issue of the permanency of [Traxler’s] alleged disability.”

In contrast to the ruling in Traxler, in Palmateer v DiNapoli, 117 AD3d 1228 [motion for leave to appeal denied, 24 NY3d 901], the Appellate Division rejected a correction officer’s appeal of the denial of his application for duty disability retirement, holding that “[a]ny connection between his injuries and the inmate conduct here is too attenuated to form a basis for an award of performance of duty disability retirement benefits.”

Lawrence Palmateer, a correction officer, had applied for duty disability retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law §507-b.** The record indicated that Palmateer was seated at a desk when he heard a commotion in the shower room that he believed to be an altercation between inmates. Getting up from his desk “his right knee gave out, causing him to fall.”

Although it was uncontroverted that Palmateer was permanently incapacitated from performing the duties of a correction officer, the Appellate Division said that it did not agree with Palmateer’s contention that the injuries he suffered “responding to a potential emergency involving inmates” were the natural and proximate result of an act of an inmate.

* §607-c[a], Performance of duty disability benefit, provides, in pertinent part, that “Any sheriff, deputy sheriff, undersheriff or correction officer as defined in subdivision a of section sixty-three-b of this chapter, and who are employed in a county which makes an election pursuant to subdivision d of such section sixty-three-b, who becomes physically or mentally incapacitated for the performance of duties as the natural and proximate result of an injury, sustained in the performance or discharge of his or her duties by, or as the natural and proximate result of any act of any inmate or any person confined in an institution under the jurisdiction of such county, shall be paid a performance of duty disability retirement allowance equal to that which is provided in section sixty-three of this chapter, subject to the provisions of section sixty-four of this chapter.”

** §507-c, Performance of duty disability retirement, applies to the uniformed personnel serving in institutions under the jurisdiction of the New York City Department of Correction.

The Traxler decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_03949.htm

ThePalmateer decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_03322.htm

______________

The Disability Benefits E-book: - This e-book focuses on disability benefits available to officers and employees in public service pursuant to Civil Service Law §§71, 72 and 73, General Municipal Law §207-a and §207-c, the Retirement and Social Security Law, the Workers’ Compensation Law, and similar provisions of law. For more information click on: http://booklocker.com/3916.html

______________