Names of retired New York City police officers not available pursuant to a FOIL request

Names of retired New York City police officers not available pursuant to a FOIL request

Empire Ctr. for N.Y. State Policy v New York City Police Pension Fund, 88 AD3d 520

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court ruling that denied the Empire Center for New York State Policy’s petition seeking an order directing the New York City Police Pension Fund to comply with Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for the names of all of the Funds retired members.

Noting that the Court of Appeals held that Public Officers Law §89(7) exempts from disclosure both the names and addresses of retirees of the New York City Police Department receiving pensions and annuities [see Matter of New York Veteran Police Assn. v New York City Police Dept. Art. I Pension Fund (61 NY2d 659)], the Appellate Division said that Supreme Court had properly denied the petition as Empire Center offered “no persuasive argument distinguishing its FOIL request from that in Matter of New York Veteran Police Assn.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_07259.htm

Where arbitration is statutorily mandated, the arbitrator’s decision is subject to "closer judicial scrutiny” than might otherwise be the case

Where arbitration is statutorily mandated, the arbitrator’s decision is subject to "closer judicial scrutiny” than might otherwise be the case

Powell v Board of Educ. of Westbury Union Free School Dist., 2012 NY Slip Op 00790, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Education Law §3020-a arbitrator sustained certain charges of misconduct against Darnel Powell and terminated his employment.

Powell appealed, contending that the arbitrator's determination was arbitrary and capricious because the arbitrator did not resolve issues of credibility in his favor.

The Appellate Division rejected Powell’s claim, explaining that in the event "the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists," a court may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by the arbitrator.

Sustaining the arbitrator's ruling, the court, however, pointed out that where the obligation to arbitrate arises as the result of a statutory mandate, as is the case in Education Law §3020-a disciplinary procedures, the arbitrator’s determination is subject to "closer judicial scrutiny" -- i.e., greater scrutiny than it might otherwise receive where submitting the matter to arbitration is a decision of the parties.* Indeed, said the Appellate Division, "An award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious."

Further, a court in reviewing a decision that resulted from compulsory arbitration inquires as to “whether the decision was rational or had a plausible basis," but otherwise accepts the arbitrators' credibility determinations, even where, as noted above, there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists."

The decision also commented that in this instance, and contrary to Powell’s contention, the arbitrator properly refused to admit into evidence his proffered polygraph test evidence.

* Presumably this standard of review would not apply in arbitrations not statutorily mandated such as arbitrations available in disciplinary procedures negotiated pursuant to §76.4 of the Civil Service Law. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_00790.htm

From the Office of the State Comptroller:

From the Office of the State Comptroller:

State Comptroller warns of lottery scam
On February 3, 2012 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued a warning of a lottery scam involving mail containing fraudulent checks that appear to have been issued by New York State. “An offer of easy money is usually too good to be true and that is the case here.” DiNapoli said.

For additional information, click on http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/feb12/020312.htm

Audits of municipalities issued during the week ending February 3, 2012

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli’s office this week released the following audits: the Town of Avon; the Village of Granville; the Village of Hamilton; the Village of Monticello; the Village of Port Jefferson; and, the Clifton–Fine Central School District. Click on the name of the jurisdiction to access the Comptroller's audit report.

Property Tax Cap filing requirements

New York State’s property tax cap, effective for local fiscal years beginning in 2012 and for the 2012-13 school year limits annual increases in the total amount of property taxes local governments and school districts can levy to either 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less, with some limited exceptions. For information, visit www.osc.state.ny.us and click the “Real Property Tax Cap Information” link, or call the State Comptroller’s Office at (518) 473-0006.

Raising a “triable issue of fact” precludes the granting of summary judgment in an action alleging unlawful retaliation

Raising a “triable issue of fact” precludes the granting of summary judgment in an action alleging unlawful retaliation

Delrio v City of New York, 2012 NY Slip Op 00747, Appellate Division, Second Department

German Delrio sued the City of New York seeking to recover damages for alleged unlawful retaliation in violation of §8-107 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York

Although Supreme Court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss Delrio’s complaint; the Appellate Division reversed the decision “on the law,” setting out the events leading to its ruling as follows:

Delrio filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights [SDHR] alleging that the New York City Fire Department [NYFD] engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice relating to employment, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, because of his sex.

SDHR determined that there was no probable cause to believe that NYFD had engaged in the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of, and dismissed Delrio’s complaint.

Delrio than asked the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, [EEOC] to review his allegations. EEOC ultimately decided to adopt the findings of the SDHR.

Delrio than commenced an action against the City of New York and four FDNY Officers to recover damages for alleged unlawful retaliation in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-107.

The Appellate Division explained that in order to make out an unlawful retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that "(1) [he or she] has engaged in protected activity, (2) [his or her] employer was aware that [he or she] participated in such activity, (3) [he or she] suffered an adverse employment action based upon [his or her] activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action."

If the plaintiff “has met this initial burden, the burden then shifts to defendants to present legitimate, independent and nondiscriminatory reasons to support their actions.”

If defendants meet this burden, plaintiff then is required to show that the reasons put forth by defendants “were merely a pretext."

In order to establish its entitlement to summary judgment in a retaliation case, a defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant's explanations were pretextual.

In this instance, said the court, while the City defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting nonretaliatory business reasons for the challenged actions, Delrio raised triable issues of fact as to whether the reasons given by the City defendants were pretextual.

The Appellate Division pointed out that Delrio had submitted an affirmation from his immediate supervisor wherein she stated that a reassignment of Delrio “violated FDNY internal procedure as well as known past practice.” Further, said the court, the record shows a “strong temporal correlation between [Delrio’s] protected activity, i.e., his involvement in the SDHR administrative complaint process, and the [City's] allegedly retaliatory actions.”

Concluding that Delrio had offered sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the reasons put forth by the City were merely pretextual, the City defendants were not entitled to a summary judgment dismissing Delrio’s complaint.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_00747.htm

A ten-day suspension without pay recommended after employee is found guilty of refusing to comply with her supervisor’s instruction

A ten-day suspension without pay recommended after employee is found guilty of refusing to comply with her supervisor’s instruction

Human Resources Administration v Traylor, OATH Index #2162/11

OATH Administrative Law Judge Ingrid M. Addison found a clerical employee to be insubordinate when she refused her supervisor’s request to make corrections to ten cases records. 

Traylor's defense: She had  told the supervisor that despite her initials on the records, they were not her cases and "insisted that [her initials] must have been inserted by someone else." 

Ultimately another employee had to make the corrections.

Judge Addison rejected the employee’s contention that the supervisor’s failure to use the word “order” or “command” when she asked Traylor to make the corrections.

The ALJ explaining that “Even if [Traylor] had not worked on the cases originally, she did not have a legitimate excuse for disobeying the directive," recommended that Traylor be suspended without pay for ten days.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-2162.pdf