Local law authorizing a "Police Accountability Board" to conduct police officer disciplinary hearings held invalid

A CPLR Article 78 proceeding initiated by the Rochesterpolice union, its president, and an individual Rochesterpolice officer [Plaintiffs] challenged the City of Rochester's Police Accountability Board's [PAB] authority to conduct disciplinary hearings and discipline officers of the City of Rochester Police Department." Supreme Court, among other things, declared parts of Local Law No. 2, which authorize and empower the PAB to conduct such hearing and discipline Rochester police officers, "void and unenforceable."

Supreme Court had agreed with the Plaintiffs and held the City's Local Law No. 2 violated the Taylor Law, Civil Service Law §75, and Unconsolidated Laws §891. The court also, sua sponte, "referred [Local Law No. 2] back to the Rochester City Council "to be reconciled and made compliant with New York State law and the Rochester City Charter."* The City Council appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division, noting that "the Rochester City Charter has been amended to grant virtually all authority for disciplining police officers to a new entity called the 'Police Accountability Board' [PAB]," opined that although "the politics swirling around this provision are weighty and fraught ... its legality is not" and held that Supreme Court "properly invalidated Local Law No. 2 insofar as it imbues PAB with disciplinary authority over Rochesterpolice officers without regard to collective bargaining."

The Appellate Division's decision explores the events leading to the establishment of the PAB, relevant law and court decisions, including two procedural issues, and the merits of the Plaintiffs' challenges to Local Law No. 2. 

* The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court "erred by referring Local Law No. 2 "back to the Rochester City Council to be reconciled and made compliant with New York State law and the Rochester City Charter."

The text of the Appellate Division's decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2021/2021_03787.htm.

 

Determining if a grievance involving a provision in a collective bargaining agreement is subject to arbitration

Supreme Court denied the petitioner's [Employer] CPLR §7503 application to permanently stay arbitration of a grievance between the Employer and the employee organization [Union] initiated pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement [CBA] between the parties. The grievance involved determining the correct amount of the employees' contributions for health insurance coverage. 

Although the Employer contended the grievance was not subject to arbitration, Supreme Court held that the grievance was arbitrable. Employer appealed the ruling.

Observing that the court's role in reviewing applications to stay arbitration is limited, the Appellate Division explained that the threshold issue is to determine whether the subject matter of the grievance is arbitrable. This, said the court, involves a two-part inquiry into whether there is [1] "any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance" and if no such prohibition is found, whether [2] the parties in fact "agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute" by examining the relevant collective bargaining agreement.

Noting that the Employer did not contend that arbitration of the grievance was prohibited by law or public policy, the court said that its inquiry distills to whether the parties agreed to arbitrate this particular grievance.

In the words of the Appellate Division, "[if] the CBA contains a broad arbitration clause, 'an agreement to arbitrate will be found by the court as long as there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA'".

Citing the relevant provisions set out in the CBA, the Appellate Division opined that as the grievance involves health insurance benefits, which are an employee benefit and an express provision of the CBA, the "grievance falls within the scope of disputes that the parties agreed to submit to arbitration." Further, the fact that the substantive clauses of the contract might not support the grievances is irrelevant on the threshold question of arbitrability and "it] is for the arbitrator, and not the courts, to resolve any uncertainty concerning the substantive rights and obligations of the parties."

Addressing the Employer additional argument in support of dismissing the Union's Article 75 petition contending that the grievance was untimely filed, the Appellate Division said "[A]ny argument concerning compliance with the grievance process, including any time limitations thereunder, is likewise a matter for the arbitrator to decide".

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court properly denied the Employer's application to permanently stay arbitration.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.

 

Hearing officer recommends dismissal of disciplinary charges after finding the employee did not used his position with his employer for personal or financial gain

New York City Office of Administrative Tribunals and Hearings [OATH] Administrative Law Judge Faye Lewis recommended that disciplinary charges against a Human Resources Administration [HRA] employee [Respondent] be dismissed as HRA failed to establish that the Respondent used his position in the agency for personal or financial gain.

HRA contended that the Respondent, a case manager assigned to a center in the Bronx, violated HRA rules and the City Charter by asking former colleagues to give his phone number to public assistance clients who might be interested in renting an apartment from him.

ALJ Lewis determined that HRA employees are permitted to rent property that they own or manage to public assistance recipients if they first submit a questionnaire for approval and that they do not work at the center providing the client’s benefits.

Respondent, said Judge Lewis, followed that procedure in that Respondent did not work at the center providing the client's benefit, and HRA had approved Respondent's request.

In addition, the ALJ noted that Respondent presented "unrefuted evidence that landlords who are not HRA employees have regular contact with case managers and could tell a case manager that they have available apartments to rent."

Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that HRA did not establish that Respondent had violated its rules, nor those set out in the City Charter with respect to the rental of the property in question, that triggered the disciplinary charges served on the Respondent.

To access the text of Judge Lewis' decision, click HERE!

 

Custodian's reliance on a prohibition in a federal regulation to withhold certain documents within the ambit of the Freedom of Information Law held misplaced

The custodian of certain documents sought pursuant to the New York State Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] denied the access to the documents concerning an accident. The custodian argued that [1] "federal law prohibited [the custodian] from providing the requested documents" and [2] the "law enforcement exemption" applied in this instance.

Petitioner [Plaintiff] then initiated a CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order annulling the agency's decision. Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's application and the agency appealed. The Appellate Division sustained the lower court's ruling.

Conceding that Public Officers Law §87(2)(a) does permit the custodian of records sought pursuant to FOIL to deny access to records if they "are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute," the Appellate Division opined out that "no federal statute exists prohibiting [the custodians] from releasing [the] requested documents."

The court explained that although the federal National Transportation Safety Board had promulgated a regulation* that prohibits parties to its investigations "from releasing information obtained during an investigation at any time prior to the [National Transportation Safety Board's] public release of information ... a regulation is not a statute and, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of this narrowly construed exemption," citing Brownstone Publs. v New York City Department of Finance, 150 AD2d 185, leave to appeal denied, 75 NY2d 791.

Addressing the agency's alternative justification for its determination, its withholding the documents demanded pursuant to FOIL's "law enforcement exemption," the Appellate Division noted that Public Officers Law §87(2)(e)(i) exempts from disclosure those records, or portions thereof, that "are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would . . . interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings."

However, said the court, in order to trigger the law enforcement exemption, the custodian of the record demanded is required to articulate a factual basis "identify[ing] the generic kinds of documents for which the exemption is claimed, and the generic risks posed by disclosure of these categories of documents."

Instead, said the Appellate Division, the agency "in conclusory and speculative fashion, averred that the exemption justified denial of access to the requested records, without providing factual assertions from anyone with personal knowledge demonstrating that the requested records were actually compiled for law enforcement purposes, either generally or specifically, in connection with the investigation of this accident."

* An Overview of Federal Regulations and the Rulemaking Process prepared by the Congressional Research Service is posted on the Internet at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10003.pdf.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.

 

Audits and reports issued during the week ending June 12, 2021 by the New York State Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and reports were issued during the week ending June 12, 2021.

Click on the text highlighted in colorto access the complete audit report.

Department of Agriculture and Markets: Oversight of the Farm-to-School Program (2020-S-9) The department needs to improve monitoring of both program expenditures and recipient performance to ensure recipients use funds as intended and achieve program goals. Auditors reviewed 21 (of 45) program contracts totaling approximately $2.27 million, of which $1.71 million had been expended as of February 2020. They found about $1.17 million (68 percent) in expenses for 17 contracts either lacked sufficient documentation to support expenses paid or were not authorized under the contract. 

City University of New York (CUNY): Compliance with Payment Card Industry Standards (Follow-Up) (2021-F-2) An audit issued in December 2019 found that CUNY had fallen short in providing its colleges with sufficient guidance and direction needed to ensure campus-wide compliance with payment card industry standards. In a follow-up, auditors found CUNY has made progress in addressing the findings identified in the initial report, but more needs to be done.

State Education Department (SED): Buffalo Hearing & Speech Center Inc. –  Compliance with the Reimbursable Cost Manual (2020-S-20) The center, a special education provider located in Erie County, provides preschool special education services to children with disabilities who are between three and five years of age in western New York. The center is reimbursed for these services through rates set by SED. For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, auditors identified $272,526 in ineligible costs reported by the center for reimbursement. SED also failed to offset $307,735 in Medicaid fee-for-service revenue received by the center when calculating its tuition rate. As a result, the center received $216,451 in excess public funding reimbursements. 

Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC): Compliance with Executive Order (EO) 95 (Open Data) (2020-S-11) EO 95 established an open data website for the collection and public dissemination of publishable state data maintained by state entities. Auditors found DEC has taken steps to meet the requirements of EO 95

Department of Motor Vehicles: Allocation, Billing, and Collection of Expenses of Administering the Motor Vehicle Financial Security Act and the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act (Follow-Up) (2021-F-3) An audit issued in December 2019 found that, in general, the department was appropriately allocating, billing, and collecting nearly all expenses related to administering the Motor Vehicle Financial Security and Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility acts. However, it could better ensure the accuracy of its allocation and billing practices. In a follow-up, auditors found the department has made some progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report and has partially implemented its two recommendations.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) - Bus Company: Fare Evasion (2019-S-7) MTA officials also did not provide assurance that Fare Enforcement and Worker Safety Program was effective in achieving its goal of reducing fare evasion losses below 2017 levels ($150 million). Instead, the MTA estimated that it lost more than $300 million to fare evasion in 2019. Certain aspects of the transit system contributed to increased fare evasion and much of the fare evasion and payment signage auditors observed was defaced, misleading, not prominently displayed, or not translated into the appropriate language for the neighborhood.

Office for People With Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD): Accountability and Surplussing of Vehicles (Follow-Up) (2021-F-1) An audit issued in August 2019 found OPWDD lacks sufficient controls over fleet vehicle management to ensure that all vehicles are properly accounted for, that vehicles are used for official state business only, and that Developmental Disabilities Services Offices are properly surplussing vehicles following a process that is fair and complies with state requirements. In a follow-up, auditors found OPWDD has made some progress in correcting the problems identified in the initial report, but improvements are still needed.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ): Selected Aspects of Leasing Practices for Real Estate Department, Aviation, World Trade Center, and Leasing of Properties (2019-S-9) PANYNJ did not realize revenue of $8.3 million from four leases at the World Trade Center (WTC) during the period June 2014 through November 2019. This amount included money due to PANYNJ for utilities, amounts due when tenants terminated their leases early, and other percentages of revenues specified in leases. PANYNJ leased seven external spaces for its use within a half mile of 1WTC at a cost of $15.9 million, despite the fact that 1WTC was not fully occupied at the time. During a review of two sampled airport system leases, auditors found that a property leased from a municipality for future development of Newark Airport was later sub-leased to a private business for a for-profit purpose. 

Workers' Compensation Board: 2019 Annual Audit (2019-WCB-01) The board processed more than 580,000 claims totaling nearly $732 million from its four special funds in 2019 - the Uninsured Employers Fund, the Special Fund for Disability Benefits, the Second Injury Fund, and the Fund for Reopened Cases. Auditors identified 1,208 errors totaling more than $4.28 million as part of daily audits. In addition, they identified 917 product code errors totaling nearly $3.85 million.

                                                                ###

Find out how your government money is spent at Open Book New York. Track municipal spending, the state's 180,000 contracts, billions in state payments and public authority data. Visit the Reading Room for contract FOIL requests, bid protest decisions and commonly requested data.