Attendance and Leave Manual updates for employees of the State of New York as the employer have been posted by the New York State Department of Civil Service

On June 24, 2025, the New York State Department of Civil Service posted the following Attendance and Leave notices on the Internet applicable to employees of the State of New York as the employer:

1. Advisory Memorandum 2025-03, Designation of Floating Holidays in Lieu of Election Day and Lincoln's Birthday for Collective Bargaining Contract Year 2025–2026; and

2. Transmittal Memorandum No. 51 - The 2026 Calendar of Legal Holidays and Days of Religious Significance.

The text of Advisory Memorandum 2025-03 is posted on the Internet  at URL Advisory Memorandum 2025-03 while the advisory memorandum in PDF format is posted on the Internet at URL Advisory Memorandum 2025-03 PDF.

The text of Transmittal Memorandum No. 51 is posted on the Internet at URL Transmittal Memorandum No. 51 while the transmittal memorandum in PDF format is posted on the Internet at URL Transmittal Memorandum No. 51 PDF.

Use the URL set out below to view earlier Attendance and Leave bulletins issued by the New York State Department of Civil Service:

 https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/index.cfm.

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.

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. 

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.