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

Jun 25, 2025

Evaluating evidence a Plaintiff has submitted in its defense of charges of its having violated a provision set out in the Administrative Code of the City of New York

Plaintiff, an armored transportation company that carries and delivers cash and currencies, appealed the New York City Office of Administrative Trials & Hearings [OATH] decision finding it guilty of allowing its employees to keep "the engine of a motor vehicle ... idle ... 'loading or unloading' in violation of a rule"* and had imposed a $350 file. 

The Appellate Division opined that the question here is whether an armored truck while making a delivery is considered a "processing device." Noting that when making a delivery "the crew members must keep the vehicle's engine running to keep its security system operative, to allow the vehicle to be moved instantly in the event of a robbery, and to ventilate the vehicle since its windows are sealed for security reasons".

The Appellate Division also noted that Plaintiff had submitted evidence in the form of a screenshot from the New York City's Department of Environmental Protection' [DEP] website indicated that "armored trucks" are "an activity classified as process" and thus not subject to the prohibition set out in the rule in question. 

In addition, Plaintiff submitted evidence that DEP had advised the Plaintiff that "there is no need to file [for] a variance, as [DEP had a] protocol in place to instruct the inspectors that if the work being performed is directly related to the reason the vehicle is idling, the inspector is not to issue the violation." 

Finding OATH's determination to be arbitrary and capricious, the Appellate Division granted Plaintiff's Article 78 petition and unanimously reversed OATH's decision, on the law, without costs, and annulled its determination

* Administrative Code of City of NY §24-163, which provides that the term "'processing device" did not to include "a heater or air conditioner operated for [vehicle] cabin comfort".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.


Jun 24, 2025

Ethics, AI and Lawyers

Rochester, New York Attorney Nicole Black recently reference two items on the Internet posted by Bar Associations addressing ethical issues and Artificial Intelligence [AI]  in the practice of law.

1. Florida Bar on the Ethics of Sharing Case Hypotheticals in the age of generative AI and rapid technological advancements, ... Read the whole entry;

and 

2. New Hampshire Ethics Committee On Drafting Legal Documents with AI

Click on the text highlighted in BLUE to access Ms. Black's items posted on the Internet.

A screenshot from the agency's website introduced into evidence by the Plaintiff in the course of a CPLR Article 78 proceeding

Plaintiff, an armored transportation company transporting cash and currencies, appealed the New York City Office of Administrative Trials & Hearings [OATH] decision finding Plaintiff guilty of violating §24-163 Administrative Code of City of NY by reason of its employees allowing "the engine of a motor vehicle ... to idle" in violation of §24-163 which states that a "'processing device shall not include a heater or air conditioner operated for cabin comfort".

In the words of the Appellate Division, the question here is whether an armored truck while making a delivery is considered a "processing device." 

The Court noted that:

1. The Plaintiff's employees "must keep the vehicle's engine running to keep its security system operative, to allow the vehicle to be moved instantly in the event of a robbery, and to ventilate the vehicle since its windows are sealed for security reasons"; 

2. Plaintiff had submitted evidence -- a screenshot from the New York City's Department of Environmental Protection' [DEP] website -- indicating that "armored trucks" are described as "an activity classified as process"; 

3. DEP had sent Plaintiff an email indicating that it's armored vehicles were not subject to the prohibition set out in §24-163; and 

4. DEP had advised Plaintiff that DEP had a  protocol in place indicating that in the event "the work being performed is directly related to the reason the vehicle is idling, the inspector is not to issue the violation." 

Finding OATH's determination to be arbitrary and capricious, the Appellate Division granted Plaintiff's Article 78 petition, unanimously reversed OATH's decision, and annulled OATH's determination

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet. 


Jun 23, 2025

Employer established there were legitimate, non-discriminatory, reasons supporting its decision to terminate a probationary employee

A New York State Supreme Court had denied, in part, the School District's [Defendant] motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division unanimously granted the Defendant's motion and dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint.

Supreme Court had dismissed Plaintiff's disability discrimination claim and a retaliation cause of action, but denied that part of the Defendant's motion seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's sex discrimination claim. 

However, said the Appellate Division, Supreme Court had "properly determine" that Defendant established there were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its employment decision to terminate the Plaintiff, a probationary employee, before the end of the Plaintiff's probationary period and that Plaintiff had failed to raise an issue of fact.

The Appellate Division explained that the Defendant had established "the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether [Defendant's] explanations were pretextual" for its decision to terminate Plaintiff and Plaintiff had failed to raise a triable issue that Defendant's reasons were false and "that [gender-] motivated discrimination was the real reason" for Defendant's employment decision.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.


Jun 21, 2025

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending June 20, 2025

No-Nonsense Guidance for Lawyers Still Confused About AI is the headline for Rochester Attorney Nicole Black's most recent Daily Record column.  Read the whole entry

New York Reports Mobile ID Gains a Year After Launch New York State’s digital ID program, free and voluntary, continues to grow as more airports and bars accept those forms of identification. Other states are expanding their own mobile ID programs. READ MORE

Building Smarter Traffic Systems New York City DOT replaced its aging traffic network infrastructure with a high-availability, secure communications backbone supporting 14,000 intersections—without disrupting daily operations. This case study details the smart infrastructure strategies that helped the city meet 99.99% uptime, boost system visibility, and win national recognition for innovation in transportation management. DOWNLOAD

Fire Departments Find New Ways of Recruiting Volunteers READ MORE

Guardrails Breached: The New Reality of GenAI-Driven Attacks From vibe hacking to malware development to deepfakes, bad actors are discovering more vulnerabilities to attack generative AI tools while also using AI to launch cyber attacks. READ MORE

California Advances AI-Related ‘No Robo Bosses Act’ A bill is advancing through the California Legislature to address fears that artificial intelligence could soon unfairly deny workers jobs and promotions or lead to punishment and firings. READ MORE

Congress Should Not Block State Action on AI A provision in the federal budget bill would bar states from taking any action on AI. This would derail careful legislation designed to promote the technology while offering needed safeguards.  READ MORE

AI in Government Finance: Seizing the Opportunity Modern finance software programs incorporate Generative AI and agentic AI to boost efficiency, improve service and manage complexity. This paper explains key differences between these technologies and why they become uniquely powerful when combined. DOWNLOAD

How Leading Cities Are Rethinking Data to Tackle Their Toughest Challenges Learn how local governments are tackling big challenges—like homelessness, mental health, and nuisance properties—through smarter data use. This guide breaks down real examples and proven approaches to unifying siloed systems, sharpening resource allocation, and delivering results that residents notice.  DOWNLOAD

Advance your AI transformation through skilling Discover essential AI skills for public servants at the Public Sector Center for Digital Skills. Explore the resources







NYPPL Publisher 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.

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.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com