ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

July 12, 2016

Selected preliminary appeal statements filed with the Court of Appeals during the month of June 2016


Selected preliminary appeal statements filed with the Court of Appeals during the month of June 2016
Source: Court of Appeals 

Is a demand to negotiate a municipality's police disciplinary procedure a mandatory subject of collective bargaining?
City of Schenectady v New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), 136 AD3d 1086
Leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals,

Issue: Did the Taylor Law, as codified in Civil Service Law Article 14, supersede Article 9 of the Second Class Cities Law thereby making City of Schenectady's police disciplinary procedure a mandatory subject of collective bargaining?

Supreme Court, Albany County, among other things, dismissed Schenectady's CPLR Article 78 application to review a determination of PERB finding that Schenectady's police disciplinary procedures were a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. The Appellate Division affirmed. [See, also, Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 6 NY3d 563 and Matter of Town of Wallkill v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc. (Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Town Of Wallkill Police Dept. Unit, Orange County Local 836), 19 NY3d 1066.] 

Offsetting the loss of future pension benefits
Andino v Mills, 135 AD3d 407
Leave to appeal granted by Appellate Division

Issue: Did the Appellate Division correctly hold that, under Oden v Chemung County Indus. Dev. Agency, 87 NY2d 81, the jury's award for future loss of pension benefits should have been offset by the total amount that plaintiff was projected to receive under her accidental disability pension?

Supreme Court, Bronx County, after a hearing, denied defendants' motion for a collateral source offset pursuant to CPLR 4545; thereafter, Supreme Court, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff the principal sums of $600,000 for past pain and suffering, $23,000,000 for future pain and suffering over 37 years, $283,422 for past lost earnings, $2,392,512 for future lost earnings over 19.24 years, $2,100,000 for future medical expenses over 37 years, and $2,490,829 for future loss of pension over 17.7 years; App. Div. modified to grant that portion of defendants' motion seeking to offset the jury's award of future pension benefits by the amount of plaintiff's accidental disability benefits, and to vacate the award for future pain and suffering and order a new trial as to such damages, unless plaintiff, within 30 days of service of a copy of the order with notice of entry, stipulated to accept a reduced award for future pain and suffering in the amount of $2.7 million and to entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith, and otherwise affirmed.



Providing for the defense and indemnification of public officers and employees named as defendants in certain litigation


Providing for the defense and indemnification of public officers and employees named as defendants in certain litigation
Scimeca v Brentwood Union Free Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 05157, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Brentwood Union Free School District [Brentwood] and a number of Brentwood employees* [Employees] were named as respondents in complaint filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights [SDHR] by another Brentwood employee [Complainant].

Employees sought “defense and indemnification” by Brentwood and a law firm other than the law firm representing Brentwood in the SDHR action was designated by Brentwood’s insurance carrier to represent Employees in the SDHR proceeding. Employees, however, perceiving conflict of interest between themselves and Brentwood, employed a different attorney to represent them in the SDHR action. Employees then sought reimbursement for the fees and litigation expenses they had incurred in defending themselves in the SDHR action from Brentwood, citing Public Officers Law §18 as authority for such payments.

Brentwood declined to  pay the fees and litigation expenses incurred by Employees as a result of their having employed their own attorney for this purpose. Employees filed an Article 78 petition seeking a court order to compel Brentwood to indemnify them for the legal expenses they had incurred in defending themselves in the SDHR action.

The Supreme Court denied the employees’ petition and dismissed the proceeding; the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Both Public Officers Law §18** and Education Law §3811 provide for a political subdivision of the State to provide for the defense and indemnification of its employees in certain actions or proceedings. 

The provisions of Public Officers Law §18, however, only become available to the employees of the political subdivision as the result of  the governing body of the political subdivision adopting a law, rule, regulation or resolution [1] providing for such representation and indemnification of its employees at the entities expense and [2] providing for the reimburse employees of any the costs and damages for which the employees are liable, exclusive of punitive or exemplary damages, fines or penalties.

Education Law §3811applies to officers, the teaching or supervisory staff, and non-instructional employee of any school district, other than the city school district of the city of New York or any board of cooperative educational services. §3811 provides for the defense of such personnel in any action or proceeding and all of his or her reasonable costs and expenses, as well as all costs and damages adjudged against him or her other than those incurred [1] in a criminal prosecution or [2] an action or a proceeding brought against him or her by a school district, including proceedings before the Commissioner of Education, arising out of the exercise of his or her powers or the performance of his or her duties under the Education Law.

According to the decision by the Appellate Division, Brentwood extended the benefits of Public Officers Law §18 to its employees, but, as that statute specifically authorizes, specified that "[t]he benefits accorded to Brentwood employees under Section 18 of the Public Officers Law shall supplement and be available in addition to defense and indemnification protection conferred by other enactments or provisions of law," such as Education Law §3811.

Insofar as relevant in this proceeding, the Appellate Division said:

1. Education Law §3811 does not exclusively govern the retention of counsel for a school district employee entitled to a defense under that statute and Public Officers Law §18;

2. Public Officers Law §18(3)(b), applies in the event that either the employer or a court determines that a conflict of interest exists and permits an employee to obtain an attorney of his or her choice and that this provision is consistent with Education Law §3811;

3. Education Law §3811 provides that the trustees or board of education have the right to designate and appoint legal counsel for an eligible employee as long as it does so within 10 days of receiving notice of the relevant action or proceeding; otherwise the employee may select his or her own legal counsel; and

4. The provisions of Public Officers Law §18 and Education Law §3811 can be read together to provide that the trustees or the board have the right to designate and appoint counsel within 10 days of receiving notice of an action or proceeding, unless the School District and the employee have conflicting interests, in which case the employee is permitted to select his or her own counsel. Under this reading, Public Officers Law §18 supplements Education Law §3811 by addressing and making provision for a specific set of circumstances not addressed in Education Law §3811.

That said, the Appellate Division noted that Brentwoodcorrectly contended that no conflict of interest existed between Brentwood and Employees with respect to defending the subject SDHR complaint that would otherwise entitle Employees to select private counsel, payable by the School District

The court explained that the SDHR complaint, which was asserted against Brentwood and Employees jointly, did not allege that Employees committed any acts outside the scope of their employment and, significantly, Brentwood, in its response to the complaint, did not assert that Employees were acting outside the scope of their employment, or that they acted improperly in any way.

As Brentwood “categorically denied all of the allegations in the complaint, countered each of the allegations with detailed facts aimed at demonstrating their falsity, and asserted that it was the Complainant who had threatened and intimidated one of [the Employees], the court concluded that no conflict of interest existed between Brentwood and Employeeswith regard to the subject SDHR complaint that would otherwise have entitled Employees to employ private counsel, to be paid by Brentwood, under a theory that a "conflict of interest" between the parties existed.

Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, Supreme Court “properly denied, and the proceeding [was] properly dismissed.”

* Although all not all public employees of a public entity are public officers, all public officers of that entity are public employees.

** §17 of the Public Officers Law provides for the defense and indemnification of officers and employees of the State as the employer in the event such persons are defendants in a civil action arising out acts or omissions involving or performed within the scope of their official duties. §19 of the Public Officers Law addresses so reimbursing an officer or an employee of the State as the employer named as a defendant in a criminal action arising out of acting within the scope of his or her public employment or duties upon his or her acquittal or upon the dismissal of the criminal charges against such officer or employee. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

July 11, 2016

Applying the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel


Applying the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel
Clifford v County of Rockland, 2016 NY Slip Op 05112, Appellate Division, Second Department

The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a party from relitigating an issue clearly raised in an action or proceeding and decided against that party in a subsequent action or proceeding regardless of whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same.

This doctrine was applied in litigation brought by Deirdre A. Clifford in a New York State court seeking to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract and discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of New York’s Executive Law §296, the State's Human Rights Law.

Clifford, an employee of County of Rockland, commenced this action against the County in Supreme Court. Rockland, however, moved to dismiss Clifford’s complaint as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, citing the dismissal of her claims against it in an earlier federal action she had brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.*

Clifford, on the other hand, claimed that her State action should go forward because the Federal District Court had declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her State law claims.

Supreme Court granted the County's motion to dismiss Clifford’s petition, which ruling was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division explained that the doctrine of collateral estoppel comes into play when four conditions are met:

(1) The issues in both proceedings are identical;

(2) The issues in the prior proceeding were actually litigated and decided;

(3) There was a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding: and

(4) The issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits.

Further, said the Appellate Division, the party attempting to invoke the doctrine has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues, while the party seeking to avoid the court’s application of the doctrine must establish the lack of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier proceeding. Stated another way, the doctrine will be applied where the initial tribunal, having jurisdiction, declined to exercise its jurisdiction over a plaintiff's claims but decided issues identical to those raised by the plaintiff in his or her subsequent action before another tribunal.

Here, said the Appellate Division, Clifford’s breach of contract claim in her State action alleged that certain terms of a disciplinary action settlement agreement disposing of certain disciplinary charges filed against her were violated. However, said the court, those allegations which she now raised in her State action were considered and rejected in the federal action.

With respect to Clifford’s claims under New York State’s Human Rights Law [NYSHRL], the Appellate Division said that "the standards for recovery under the New York Human Rights Law are in nearly all instances identical to Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] and other federal law" and the Federal District Court determined that Rockland County had “legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons for its employment actions, and that those reasons were not a pretext for discrimination.”

This determination, said the court, was dispositive of Clifford’s NYSHRL claims.

Finding that [1] Rockland County had met its burden of demonstrating that the issues Clifford raised in her State action were identical to those decided against her in the federal action and [2] Clifford failed to demonstrate that she did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate these issues in her federal action, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court properly granted the County's motion to dismiss Clifford’s State complaint.

* Clifford v County of Rockland, 2012 WL 2866268, 2012 US Dist LEXIS 98783 [USDC SD NY, 10 CV 9679 (VB)], affirmed 528 Fed Appx 6 [2d Cir]).

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

July 09, 2016

Selected reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending July 9, 2016


Selected reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending July 9, 2016
Source: Office of the State Comptroller

Click on text highlighted in color to access the posting. 

Executive Director of Baychester Youth Council indicted for allegedly stealing more than $100,000 from federal grant monies

N.B. An indictment is an accusatory instrument and not proof of a defendant's guilt.

Earnestine Russell has been charged with grand larceny. Bronx District Attorney Darcel D. Clark and New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the longtime director of a Bronx youth group has been indicted on charges she stole $112,000 from a state-administered, federally funded grant provided to support after-school programs for middle school children.

District Attorney Clark said, "The defendant, Earnestine Russell, allegedly turned the Baychester Youth Council into a façade for her thievery, and enriched herself for years instead of enriching the lives of the children she purported to cherish."

State Comptroller DiNapoli said, "Earnestine Russell allegedly took public money intended to give children a safe and nurturing place to go after school and spent it on personal trips and electronic equipment for herself. After my office found her theft, we worked closely with Bronx County District Attorney Darcel D. Clark and her staff to make certain that Ms. Russell is held accountable."

District Attorney Clark said that Ms. Russell, 66, was indicted on second-degree grand larceny and second-degree criminal possession of stolen property. She was arraigned on July 6, 2016, before Bronx Supreme Court Justice Steven Barrett. Bail was set at $30,000 cash and an examination of surety. Ms. Russell is due back in court on August 9, 2016.

According to the investigation by the Bronx District Attorney's Office and the State Comptroller's Office, in 2008, Ms. Russell--who has run the Baychester Youth Council since the 1980s -- received a federal grant, administered by the New York State Education Department, for more than $2.7 million over five years to create a 21st Century Community Learning Center.

The State Comptroller's Office audited Ms. Russell in 2012 and found she used $250,400 for inappropriate or undocumented expenses-- including a home theater-- and the grant was revoked.

The Bronx DA's Office began investigating and found that Ms. Russell had moved the grant money through numerous bank accounts; made cash withdrawals; wrote checks to cash, herself or family; and made wire transfers from the accounts. When confronted with her gambling records, which showed betting of more than $150,000 during the fraud period of 2009-2011, Ms. Russell denied betting, then explained the figures also showed winnings she bet. Ms. Russell also told investigators that she could "make whatever use of [the money]" she saw fit.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant District Attorneys Markus Sztejnberg of the Economic Crimes Bureau and Jeffrey Glucksman , Chief of Trial Bureau 70, under the supervision of William Zelenka, Chief of the Economic Crimes Bureau, and Jean T. Walsh, Chief of the Investigations Division.

District Attorney Clark thanked the State Comptroller's Division of Investigations and Bureau of State Expenditures, as well as New York State Police Investigators John Bode and Charles Sands and Senior Investigators Michael Vazquez, Michael Davis and John Vescio for their assistance in the investigation, and retired Assistant Bronx District Attorney Linda Tacoma for her diligent work on the case.


Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse.  Individuals can report allegations of fraud involving public funds by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by transmitting an e-mail to investigations@osc.state.ny.us, by filing a complaint online athttp://osc.state.ny.us/investigations/complaintform2.htm or by mailing a complaint to Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 14th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.


New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits have been issued:

NYC Human Resources Administration (HRA) and the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA): Benefit Eligibility Assessment Process (2015-F-28)
An initial audit issued in May 2014 found that HRA applied a fair and consistent assessment process when determining client eligibility in compliance with governing policies and procedures. Auditors also determined that changes were necessary to reduce the number of overturned HRA determinations and costly, and in some cases unnecessary, OTDA Fair Hearings. Auditors also found that OTDA's closed-case coding system did not always adequately describe the case resolution. In a follow-up report, auditors found OTDA and HRA have made significant progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial report.

New York Wine and Grape Foundation: Use of State Appropriations (2015-S-102)
The foundation has appropriately used its state money to fund allowable activities. The foundation has also exceeded its contractual commitment to leverage state money. Although it is only required to obtain outside funding equal to what the state provides, it has obtained nearly double that. The foundation has established effective internal controls over most of its financial operations. However, auditors found that certain revenue payments were being sent directly to an employee's home and not to the foundation's business office. Foundation officials immediately rectified the problem.

Department of Health (DOH): Program Oversight and Monitoring of the Maximus Contract for the New York State of Health (Insurance Marketplace) Customer Service Center (2015-S-80)
DOH has an effective system to ensure that Maximus is complying with contract requirements and meeting performance standards. DOH can make improvements noted by actions already taken, such as requiring Maximus to provide a complete sample population for each business function the department reviews; and to increase staffing to complete more quality assurance reviews.

Department of Economic Development (ESD): Review of Trivision Tek Group Inc. (2016-BSE01-01)
Auditors found ESD approved three vouchers totaling $350,000 payable to Trivision for services previously paid for and for services never performed. This includes $330,200 for consulting services Trivision performed as a subcontractor at DOH and $19,800 for project management services that were never performed. As a result of the examination, auditors rejected the final $211,109 payment request from Trivision to ESD. In addition, ESD recovered the $138,891 it paid under the grant.

New York State Thruway Authority: Contract Participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises and Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprises (MWBE) (2014-S-76)
The Thruway has not accurately reported its MWBE utilization. For example, the authority consistently reports only a portion of its eligible contract expenses, thereby overstating its MWBE utilization rate. Further, the Thruway did not make adjustments for payments to MWBE prime contractors who, in turn, paid other MWBE contractors as subcontractors, resulting in a double-counting of payments.

State falls short in verifying if companies qualify for tax breaks under Excelsior Program
Empire State Development Corp. (ESD), the entity in charge of doling out millions of dollars in tax credits to companies that pledge to expand in New York state, could not verify that many of the companies participating in the Excelsior Jobs Program met their obligations or even justify giving the businesses tax breaks in the first place, according to an auditreleased by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

DiNapoli’s auditors found a range of problems from lowering job creation goals after companies did not meet expectations to not verifying if jobs were full-time or part-time. ESD also could not produce evidence that several companies actually created jobs and did not simply shift jobs.

“New York state gives away millions of dollars each year in tax breaks for companies that are supposed to create jobs and expand under the Excelsior program, but ESD’s oversight leaves a lot to be desired,” DiNapoli said. “ESD needs to stop lowering the bar and giving companies a pass when they fall short of promises. ESD needs to ensure these businesses are not taking advantage of state taxpayers.” 

The Excelsior Jobs Program, established in 2010, provides refundable tax credits to businesses in targeted industries in exchange for creating and maintaining specific numbers of new jobs or making significant capital investments. The program replaced the Empire Zone Program and was aimed at bringing greater accountability to the companies’ for their economic development commitments.

ESD requires companies to submit an annual performance report to account for their annual job creation and investment totals, as well as other supporting documentation such as tax reports and invoice receipts for qualified investments. Companies need to meet at least 75 percent of the agreed-upon commitments to receive any benefits.

According to ESD reports, 1,152 businesses applied to participate in the program from September 2010 through March 2015. Of these, the state accepted 328 businesses (29 percent), and committed over $548 million in tax credits to them in exchange for their commitment to invest nearly $5.8 billion and create 34,472 new jobs in New York.

Auditors examined 25 companies that, as of June 2015, were authorized to receive 39 tax credits totaling $4.84 million.

Specifically, DiNapoli’s auditors found ESD failed to exercise due diligence when approving any of the 25 sampled companies for participation in the program and does not follow its own protocol for scrutiny of applications. ESD did not provide auditors with documentation to verify that the 25 companies met all of the eligibility requirements before being officially admitted into the program and could not verify the companies met the agreed-upon job growth and investment benchmarks for five of the 39 (13 percent) tax credits totaling $214,000.

For 34 of the 39 issued tax credits totaling $4.6 million, ESD provided auditors with worksheets that staff used to compile data to support their tax credit calculations. However, although ESD steadfastly maintains it gave the auditors all the information it had, most of the files lacked the documentation to support that ESD had actually exercised due diligence and taken steps to verify the reported amounts. 

For example, on 31 of the worksheets provided, ESD workers made notations indicating they had compared their data with information contained on corroborating state tax forms. Yet, those forms were present for only a very few companies.  In one case where information was available, auditors found ESD used a higher wage amount than was actually paid according to the tax forms. This resulted in at least $187,062 in excess tax credits being authorized to this company for 2012.

In addition, 11 of the worksheets were for credits based on promised investments and each indicated that ESD staff had reviewed company invoices to support investments made. However, ESD provided auditors with complete corroborating support for only eight of the 39 tax credits, accounting for just $417,000 (less than 9 percent) of the $4.84 million.

For four of the 34 tax credits for which ESD provided supporting worksheets, auditors found that ESD adjusted the original annual job creation commitment numbers after the fact to align with the lower job creation totals that the companies had actually attained. As a result, the three companies involved received a total of $358,329 in tax credits to which they would otherwise not have been entitled.

For two of the revisions, ESD could not provide evidence from the company justifying the need for the revision – including one company whose 2012 job commitment was reduced from 600 to 363 for no apparent reason. Another company subsequently closed operations after being authorized to receive $556,446 in tax credits.

Auditors also found no evidence that ESD took steps to determine whether companies shifted employees from related companies and counted them as new jobs to the state.

DiNapoli’s auditors found that ESD does not require companies to provide evidence that new jobs met the 35-hour work week criterion, nor does it even collect this data. Instead, ESD accepts companies’ annual performance report certification that the reported employees worked at least 35 hours a week as sufficient validation.

Auditors visited four companies and reviewed various records. At one company, two of the seven new employees – the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer – did not work 35 hours per week in 2013 and 2014. At the second company, a range of 33 to 40 employees, whom the company listed as new hires, actually worked part-time in 2012 and 2013 and did not meet the 35-hour per week work criterion.

DiNapoli recommended ESD:

1. Obtain sufficient corroborating documentation to support that all program participants meet the eligibility requirements for job growth and investments before receiving tax credits;

2. Ensure that all tax credit calculations are correct before issuing any credits;

3. Limit modifications to annual job growth and investment requirements to only unforeseen justifiable circumstances; 

4. Ensure project files contain all required documentation to support that companies met eligibility requirements before being accepted into the program;

5. Establish and use specific, objective and quantifiable criteria for ranking program applications; and

6. Increase program transparency by including complete and accurate information in quarterly reports.

DiNapoli’s auditors noted that ESD officials were not forthcoming in responding to requests for project files and for other information related to the sampled companies and the program in general.

ESD officials disagreed with the audit’s findings. Their full response is contained in the audit. DiNapoli’s auditors noted that ESD officials did not respond to some of the preliminary findings, addressing certain specific findings and ignoring others. ESD officials also avoided addressing the audit’s overall conclusions.

DiNapoli has cited numerous concerns that ESD provides limited public reporting on the results of economic development programs and often cannot verify if programs are achieving desired results.

In May 2015, DiNapoli released an auditof ESD’s $211 million campaign to promote economic development and tourism in the state and found it delivered no tangible results. His office has also released a series of audits on the state’s minority- and women-owned business enterprises that found inaccurate and significantly inflated reporting.



July 08, 2016

Fraudulent entities alleging a philanthropic status undercut the trust of corporate and individual donors wishing to contribute to legitimate charitable organizations


Fraudulent entities alleging a philanthropic status undercut the trust of corporate and individual donors wishing to contribute to legitimate charitable organizations
Source: Charity Navigator and posted as a public service

Charity Navigator [CN] has posted a list of organizations soliciting funds for various purposes it characterizes as fraudulent and scams that undercut the trust of donors to social sector charitable organizations.

Such solicitations prey upon the emotions and positive intentions of the public by posing as a legitimate charity. However, said CN, “[t]hey are not registered with the IRS, and many are under investigation for fraud.”

CN at http://www.charitynavigator.org/ is itself a 501(c)(3) organization, seeks to guide intelligent giving by rating various charitable organizations in order to advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic marketplace in which givers and the charities they support work in tandem to overcome our nation’s and the world’s most persistent challenges. CN evaluations are made available on the Internet without charge.

Organizations on Charity Navigator’s list of “fraudulent” entities is posted on the Internet at:

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com