Publication of its investigation report by the New York City Office of Special Commissioner of Investigations on the Internet challenged by a party named in the report

An investigation report prepared by the New York City Office of Special Commissioner of Investigations [SCI] substantiated allegations that a contractor [Plaintiff] had engaged in "theft of services" and recommended that he be deemed ineligible to work as a contractor for New York City Department of Education [DOE]. The report was subsequently posted by SCI on its Internet site. Plaintiff then initiated a CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order compelling SCI to remove the report from its website.

Supreme Court denied the petition filed by Plaintiff and dismissed the proceeding. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower courts ruling. The Appellate Division ruling that SCI's decision not to remove the report upon Plaintiff's request was not arbitrary and capricious, citing Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424. The court also noted that the record demonstrated that SCI considered Plaintiff's "refusal to participate in its investigation, the nature of the conduct it substantiated, and the public interest in exposing the misconduct."

Thus, said the court, "[i]t was not unreasonable for SCI to conclude that [Plaintiff's] untimely rebuttal, submitted to the DOE months after it adopted SCI's recommendations, and the almost 10 years that passed from the report's publication before [Plaintiff's] current request, did not compel the report's removal," Further, said the Appellate Division,  the Special Commissioner is authorized to "issue such reports regarding corruption or other criminal activity, unethical conduct, conflicts of interest, and misconduct, that he or she deems to be in the best interest of the school district," sustaining the SCI's power to publish it report on the Internet.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_00033.htm

Where certain disciplinary charges and specifications fail to survive judicial review the appointing authority must determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed based on the surviving charges and specifications

The Appellate Division ruled that dismissal of one or more Charges and, or, specification set out in a §75 disciplinary action required remanding the matter to the appointing authority for reconsideration of the disciplinary penalty imposed on the employee.

The appointing authority filed disciplinary charges against an employee [Petitioner] pursuant to Civil Service Law §75. Charge I consisted of six specifications alleging misconduct and, or, incompetence in connection with the Petitioner's performance in handling "911 calls" on a specified date while Charge II, consisted of five specifications, alleged misconduct and, or, incompetence in  Petitioner's handling of 911 calls on a different specified date.

After Petitioner testified concerning the "911 calls" underlying Charges I and II, the appointing authority directed a further investigation into the Petitioner's handling of other 911 calls. The findings resulting from this "further investigation" led to the appointing authority's filing "seven supplemental charges", Supplemental Charges I through and including VII against the Petitioner. Each such supplemental Charge set out multiple specifications of alleged misconduct in Petitioner's handling of these seven additional "911 calls."

The §75 disciplinary hearing officer designated by the appointing authority found Petitioner guilty of various, but not all, Charges and specifications and recommended that the Petitioner's employment be terminated given "the number and extent of his instances of misconduct and/or incompetence."

Petitioner then initiated a CPLR Article 78 action in Supreme Court seeking a judicial review the appointing authority's determination to impose the penalty of dismissal from employment. Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR §7804(g).

The Appellate Division explained that judicial review of an employee's Article 78 proceeding involving employee discipline made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 is limited to consideration of whether that determination was supported by substantial evidence. Further, the Appellate Division opined that courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by the appointing authority where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exist, or where  different inferences may be drawn, as "the duty of weighing the evidence and making the choice rests solely upon the [appointing authority]."

Here any credibility issues were resolved by the disciplinary hearing officer. Further, substantial evidence in the record supports the determination that the Petitioner was guilty of the misconduct alleged in certain, but not all, Charges and Specifications. Here, however, the Appellate Division ruled that "specifications 3 and 4 of Charge II, and  a portion of specification 6 of Supplemental Charge VII cannot be sustained."

Concluding that the appointing authority had imposed the penalty of termination of Petitioner's employment in consideration of "all of the specifications for which he was found guilty, and [the court had dismissed] three of those specifications," the Appellate Division, citing Aronsky v Board of Educ., Community School Dist. No. 22 of City of N.Y., 75 NY2d 997, vacated the penalty of dismissal and remitted the matter to the appointing authority "to consider the appropriate penalty to be imposed upon the remainder of the charges and specifications for which he was found guilty, and the imposition of that penalty thereafter" in consideration of only the Charges and specifications that had survived judicial review.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_07582.htm

Exceptions to the "going and coming to work" rule in determining if an injured employee was performing his job duties at the time he suffered an injury

A state park police officer [Claimant] filed an application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits with the New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System [System] alleging that he was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties as a result of a slip and fall on his employer's premises.

The System denied Claimant’s application, finding that he failed to establish permanent incapacitation. Claimant requested a hearing and redetermination of the Systems determination. The designated Hearing Officer sustained the System’s the denial of Claimant’s application, finding that the Claimant was not in service at the time he suffered his injuries. The Comptroller accepted the Hearing Officer’s findings and conclusions and the Claimant filed a CPLR Article 78 petition challenging the Comptroller’s decision.

The Appellate Division commenced it review of Claimant’s appeal by noting that the claimant bears the burden of proving that he was "[p]hysically or mentally incapacitated [from] performance of duty as the natural and proximate result of a disability . . . sustained in such service" and the individual “was performing job duties at the time of the injury.”*

The court then noted that at the hearing Claimant testimony “made apparent that he was actually on his way into work at the time of his injury, not ‘on duty and at work’ as he stated in his application for benefits.” In the words of the Appellate Division, “[Claimant’s] own testimony establishes that he slipped and fell on icy stairs on his way into work prior to the start of his shift, and we have upheld findings that an employee who is injured before reporting for work and commencing his or her duties is not ‘in service’ when the injuries were sustained.”

Thus, said the court, the Comptroller's determination that claimant was not in service at the time he sustained his injury is accordingly supported by substantial evidence, and it declined to disturb it.

Although the general rule is that an injury sustained by an employee during travel to and from the place of his or her employment does not come within the ambit of the Workers’ Compensation Law, there are certain exceptions to this "going and coming" rule. One such exception arises when the employee is engaged in a "special errand" for the employer.

In Neacosia v NY Power Authority, 85 NY2d 471, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision that a security officer [Officer], who was injured after he stopped on his way home to leave his work uniform at a cleaning shop, was acting within the scope of his employment and thus was eligible for workers' compensation benefits.

Officer was employed by the New York State Power Authority. The Authority provided its security officers with uniforms and required that they keep the uniforms clean and presentable. To this end the Authority had made arrangements with a number of cleaning establishments to clean their security officers’ uniforms and bill the agency for their services. In the alternative, security personnel could arrange for the cleaning themselves and then submit bills to the Authority for the cost of the cleaning.

Officer was driving home after completing his shift. Under the facts giving rise to Officer’s claim, which were stipulated, the Administrative Law Judge [ALF] found the Officer’s travel had a dual purpose that served to extend the scope of his employment as he was leaving a designated cleaning establishment after leaving his uniforms to be cleaned.

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the ALJ’s determination, illustrating one of the exceptions to the general rule that an injury sustained by an employee during travel to and from the place of his or her employment does not come within the ambit of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Here the Board found that Officer  was engaged in a "special errand" for the employer. The Court of Appeals sustained the Workers’ Compensation Board's ruling that Officer was engaged in a "special errand" at the time he was injured and thus eligible for Workers' Compensation benefits.

* See Retirement and Social Security Law §363-c[b][1].

The Claimant's decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_09079.htm

Agency's alleged failure to process an employee's contract grievance does not state a claim that the union breached its duty of fair representation

PERB's ruled that petitioner [Employee] in this CPLR Article 78 action failed to state a claim of improper practices against his employer [Agency] and his employee organization [Union] based on his allegation that the Agency "did not process his grievances quickly enough." The Employee appealed but the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed PERB's determination.

Citing Civil Service Bar Association, Local 237 v City of New York, 64 NY2d 188, the Appellate Division explained that PERB had rationally found that Employee failed to allege facts that would show that his Union had engaged in arbitrary, discriminatory or bad faith conduct, which is necessary to state a claim that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation within the meaning of Article 14 or the Civil Service Law, typically referred to as the Taylor Law.

Noting that Employee had acknowledged that a Union representative had sent an email to the Agency seeking to schedule three of Employee's grievances for a "Step II hearing" with respect to Employee's primary complaint that the Agency "did not process his grievances quickly enough," the court opined that such an allegation "does not present a basis for finding that [the Union] breached its duty of fair representation." As the Employee failed to show that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation, he was precluded from litigating directly against the Agency for any alleged improper employer practice within the meaning of Civil Service Law §209-a(1).

Further, said the court, PERB "rationally concluded that [Employee's] charge failed to allege facts that would show that [the Agency] refused to process his grievances on the basis of improper motivation or discrimination. Indeed, the Appellate Division observed that "construed liberally in [Employee's] favor, the allegations in the charge are conclusory and fail to establish that PERB acted arbitrarily and capriciously in dismissing the charge."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_00065.htm

Exceptions to the "going and coming" rule in determining if an injured employee was performing his job duties at the time he suffered an injury

A state park police officer [Claimant] filed an application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits with the New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System [System] alleging that he was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties as a result of a slip and fall on his employer's premises.

The System denied Claimant’s application, finding that he failed to establish permanent incapacitation. Claimant requested a hearing and redetermination of the Systems determination. The designated Hearing Officer sustained the System’s the denial of Claimant’s application, finding that the Claimant was not in service at the time he suffered his injuries. The Comptroller accepted the Hearing Officer’s findings and conclusions and the Claimant filed a CPLR Article 78 petition challenging the Comptroller’s decision.

The Appellate Division commenced it review of Claimant’s appeal by noting that the claimant bears the burden of proving that he was "[p]hysically or mentally incapacitated [from] performance of duty as the natural and proximate result of a disability . . . sustained in such service" and the individual “was performing job duties at the time of the injury.”*

The court then noted that at the hearing Claimant testimony “made apparent that he was actually on his way into work at the time of his injury, not ‘on duty and at work’ as he stated in his application for benefits.” In the words of the Appellate Division, “[Claimant’s] own testimony establishes that he slipped and fell on icy stairs on his way into work prior to the start of his shift, and we have upheld findings that an employee who is injured before reporting for work and commencing his or her duties is not ‘in service’ when the injuries were sustained.”

Thus, said the court, the Comptroller's determination that claimant was not in service at the time he sustained his injury is accordingly supported by substantial evidence, and it declined to disturb it.

Although the general rule is that an injury sustained by an employee during travel to and from the place of his or her employment does not come within the ambit of the Workers’ Compensation Law, there are certain exceptions to this "going and coming" rule. One such exception arises when the employee is engaged in a "special errand" for the employer.

In Neacosia v NY Power Authority, 85 NY2d 471, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision that a security officer [Officer], who was injured after he stopped on his way home to leave his work uniform at a cleaning shop, was acting within the scope of his employment and thus was eligible for workers' compensation benefits.

Officer was employed by the New York State Power Authority. The Authority provided its security officers with uniforms and required that they keep the uniforms clean and presentable. To this end the Authority had made arrangements with a number of cleaning establishments to clean their security officers’ uniforms and bill the agency for their services. In the alternative, security personnel could arrange for the cleaning themselves and then submit bills to the Authority for the cost of the cleaning.

Officer was driving home after completing his shift. Under the facts giving rise to Officer’s claim, which were stipulated, the Administrative Law Judge [ALF] found the Officer’s travel had a dual purpose that served to extend the scope of his employment as he was leaving a designated cleaning establishment after leaving his uniforms to be cleaned.

The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the ALJ’s determination, illustrating one of the exceptions to the general rule that an injury sustained by an employee during travel to and from the place of his or her employment does not come within the ambit of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Here the Board found that Officer was engaged in a "special errand" for the employer. The Court of Appeals sustained the Workers’ Compensation Board's ruling that Officer was engaged in a "special errand" at the time he was injured and thus eligible for Workers' Compensation benefits.

* See Retirement and Social Security Law §363-c[b][1].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_09079.htm