Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State in particular and possibly in other jurisdictions in general.
The
Discipline Book
- Click HERE for information and read a free excerpt.
A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty - Click HERE for information and read a free excerpt.
The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - Click HERE for information and read a free excerpt.
Disability Leave for fire, police and other public sector personnel - Click HERE for information and read a free excerpt.
Senator Tedisco’s bill, S.291/A.1347, sets aside 10 percent of the current legislative internship program intern positions in the Senate and in the Assembly to provide an opportunity for veterans appointed to serve as legislative interns "to see the inner workings of the representative democracy they put their lives on the line to defend." The V.I.P. bill, S.291/A.1347, is co-sponsored in the New York State Assembly by Member of the Assembly Marianne Buttenschon. Click HERE for information about this Internship Program. |
The Department of the Treasury recently published final regulations, implementing the reduced electronic threshold under Section 2301 of the Taxpayer First Act of 2019 (TFA).
Under the regulations found in T.D. 9972, taxpayers who are required to file at least 10 returns of any type during the calendar year must file electronically.
Generally, the final regulation applies after 2023. See the regulations for detailed dates of applicability to specific returns.
Among others, the regulations apply to the following forms:
Government Entities
Exempt Organizations
Employee Plans
Under Internal Revenue Code Section 6011(e)(2)(B), the regulations take into account the ability of the taxpayer to e-file at reasonable cost. On a year-by-year and form-by-form basis, the IRS may waive the requirement to file electronically in cases of undue hardship. In certain circumstances, a filer may be administratively exempt from the requirement to file electronically. The instructions to each form will set forth details on the waiver. In general, the filer should maintain documentation supporting the undue hardship or other applicable reason for not filing electronically.
Additionally, Section 3101 of the TFA sets forth “mandatory e-filing by exempt organizations,” which is already in effect. This applies to the following forms:
The Plaintiff in this CPLR Article 78 action challenged the New York City Police Department's [NYPD], decision not select Plaintiff for appoint as a probationary police officer. Supreme Court granted NYPD's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff appealed but the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's ruling.
The Appellate Division, noting the Plaintiff failed "to allege any facts suggesting that NYPD's determination was arbitrary and capricious," explained that Plaintiff's passage of the civil service exam and other qualifications did not entitle him to an appointment.
Citing Matter of Gomez v Hernandez, 50 AD3d 404, the Appellate Division opined "Even [well-qualified] candidates such as [Plaintiff] ... can be denied [appointment] provided appropriate discretion is used within the confines of the 'one-of-three' rule in Civil Service Law §61.*
The court observed, "it is not arbitrary and capricious for an agency to provide no reason for an appointing official's exercise of discretion in declining to appoint a specific candidate".
The decision also noted that Plaintiff's "allegations of delays and irregularities in the selection process do not meet his 'heavy burden of proof, for which conclusory allegations and speculative assertions will not suffice'".
* Click HERE to access NYPPL's comments concerning the origin and application of the Rule of Three.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.
A detective sergeant [Detective Sergeant], while on "standby-status", was en route to the precinct using his personal vehicle to travel to the precinct to, as required, secure a police vehicle to use to travel to a crime scene. Stopped at a traffic light, Detective Sergeant's vehicle was struck from behind by another vehicle, resulting in Detective Sergeant sustaining injuries.
Detective Sergeant's claim for workers' compensation benefits was controverted by his self-insured employer and its third-party administrator [Employer]. Following a hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ] found that the accident arose out of and in the course of Detective Sergeant's employment. Employer appealed and the Workers' Compensation Board [Board] reversed the decision of the WCLJ and disallowed the claim, finding that Detective Sergeant "was not within the scope of his employment while traveling to work and that the special errand exception did not apply."
Detective Sergeant appealed and the Appellate Division, citing Workers' Compensation Law §10[1] and earlier court decisions, reversed the Board's ruling, explaining "An injury sustained by an employee is compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law if it "aris[es] out of and in the course of the employment". Further, said the court, "[g]iven the remedial nature of the Workers' Compensation Law, [this court has] consistently construed this requirement liberally[] in order to effectuate the economic and humanitarian objectives of the act", citing Matter of Lemon v New York City Tr. Auth., 72 NY2d 324.
Conceding that typically injuries "incurred while commuting to work are generally not covered because the risks inherent in traveling to and from work relate to the employment only in the most marginal sense", the Appellant Division ruled, as relevant here, "[t]he 'special errand' exception [rule] considers an employee to be acting within the scope of employment where, at the employer's direction, the employee undertakes a work-related errand and thereby 'has altered the usual geographical or temporal scheme of travel, thereby altering the risks to which the employee is usually exposed during normal travel''.
At the Workers' Compensation hearing, there was testimony from the Employer's witness that Detective Sergeant's shift and overtime pay did not begin until Detective Sergeant, then on "stand-by" status, "arrived at the police station and checked out a police vehicle." Such fact, said the court, even if true, is not dispositive of whether the special errand exception applies. Irrespective of when Detective Sergeant's overtime pay began, the court held that as the record reflects that Detective Sergeant was contacted at 4:15 a.m., at which time Detective Sergeant was engaged in a special errand, as he was then required to report to work early in order to pick up a police vehicle so that he could proceed directly to the crime scene in that vehicle.
Although Detective Sergeant testified that he traveled to the police station along his usual geographical route, the Appellate Division noted that "the work-related activity that Detective Sergeant was encouraged/required by his employer to do and performed for the employer's benefit upon being called in early while on standby" required Detective Sergeant to "alter[ ] the usual . . . temporal scheme of travel, thereby altering the risks to which [Detective Sergeant was] usually exposed during normal travel."
Although the Board identified the correct standard articulated by the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division concluded that the Board had misapplied "the special errand exception by overlooking the altered temporal scheme of [Detective Sergeant's] travel and significance of the work-related activity performed by claimant for the Employer's benefit upon being contacted by the Employer while on standby."
The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter to the Board "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision."
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.