Health insurance benefits set out in collective bargaining agreement found to have survived expiration of agreement and the employee's resignation

The plaintiff [Petitioner] in this action was initially employed by the City of Lockport [Lockport] in a position in a collective bargaining unit represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees [AFSCME]. Lockport subsequently promoted Petitioner to a position in a collective bargaining unit represented by the Civil Service Employees Association [CSEA]. In 2008 Petition later left Lockport's employ and commenced working for Niagara County [County]. In 2016, Petitioner asked Lockport provide him medical benefits set out in the relevant collective bargaining agreements [CBAs] between Lockport and AFSCME and between Lockport and CSEA.

When Lockport refused to do so, Petitioner commenced an action for breach of contract and sought a court order declaring that Lockport was required to provide him with the medical benefits set out in the relevant CBA. Ultimately Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Lockport was obligated to provide Petitioner with medical benefits under the Lockport and AFSCME CBA. The Appellate Division, in response to Lockport's appeal challenging the Supreme Court's decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling.

The court explained that "[a]s a general rule, contractual rights and obligations do not survive beyond the termination of a collective bargaining agreement .... However, [r]ights which accrued or vested under the agreement will, as a general rule, survive termination of the agreement . . . , and [the court] must look to well established principles of contract interpretation to determine whether the parties intended that the contract give rise to a vested right."

Citing Kolbe v Tibbetts, 22 NY3d 344, the Appellate Division observed that whether a provision in a collective bargaining agreement "is ambiguous is a question of law and extrinsic evidence may not be considered unless the document itself is ambiguous. In contrast, said the court, where the language in the collective bargaining agreement "is 'reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation, extrinsic or parol evidence may be then permitted to determine the parties' intent as to the meaning of that language,'" referencing Fernandez v Price, 63 AD3d 672 quoting Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570.

In this instance the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court "properly determined that the plain meaning of the provisions at issue in the AFSCME CBA establishes that [Petitioner] has a vested right to medical benefits, [that] those rights vested when he completed his 20th year of service, and [Petitioner] became eligible to receive said benefits when he reached retirement age."

Further opined the Appellate Division, Petitioner's right to medical benefits "vested when he satisfied the criteria in the AFSCME CBA, and there is no language in the AFSCME CBA indicating that employees would forfeit or surrender their vested rights if they transferred jobs or unions prior to reaching retirement age." Accordingly the court concluded that Supreme Court's interpretation of the AFSCME CBA "give[s] fair meaning to all of the language employed by the parties to reach a practical interpretation of the expressions of the parties so that their reasonable expectations will be realized ... and does not leave one of its provisions substantially without force or effect."

N.B. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, Motion #CA 18-00924 [see
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/motions/2018/2018_66476.htm]

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_08792.htm

Property owner liable if a firefighter is injured in the line of duty due to the owner's failure to comply with law, rule or regulation that resulted in the injury

General Municipal Law §205-a "gives a firefighter . . . a right of action against any person whose negligent failure to comply with a government provision either  directly or indirectly results in injury" suffered in the "line of duty."

A city firefighter, who had sustained injuries in the course of performing firefighting duties when he "stepped onto a roof, slipped on the snowy surface and fell to the ground," and his spouse [Plaintiffs] sued the owner, [Defendant] alleging the Defendant was liable, citing General Municipal Law §205-a and General Obligations Law §11-106. Supreme Court granted the Defendant's motion and Plaintiffs appealed.

The Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court properly granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, explaining that while General Municipal Law §205-a "gives a firefighter . . . a right of action," to successfully make out such a claim, a plaintiff:

1. Must identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply;

2. Describe the manner in which the firefighter was injured; and

3. Set out the facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant's negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm to the firefighter.

In contrast, to succeed on a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action in this context, a defendant must show either:

1. Defendant did not violate any relevant governmental provision or;

2. If a relevant government provision was violated, that such violation did not directly or indirectly cause [the firefighter's] injuries."

Defendant had submitted his deposition testimony and the affidavit of an expert opining that Defendant's house contained no building code violations that contributed to the firefighter's injuries.

Plaintiffs contended that Defendant had violated statutory and building code provisions requiring all multifamily dwellings to contain fire-resistant enclosures at the base or top of stairways or both and that the lack of such enclosures contributed to the firefighter's injuries.

The court, however, observed that Plaintiffs' expert contended that Defendant violated provisions of these laws, but his opinions were based on assumptions without any explanation of how these laws were applicable in this instance.

Further, although Plaintiffs also assert that Defendant violated local ordinances by failing to obtain permits when certain work was performed inside the house, the Appellate Division noted that record does not indicate that any of those alleged violations caused or contributed to the firefighter's injuries.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court had properly determined that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_02604.htm

____________

Disability Benefits for fire, police and other public sector personnel - This e-book addresses retirement for disability under the NYS Employees' Retirement System, the NYS Teachers' Retirement System, General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and similar statutes providing benefits to employees injured both "on-the-job" and "off-the-job." For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/3916.html

_________

Selected cases noted in the press during the week ending April 6, 2019

A federal judge has ruled there is no coverage under a homeowners' insurance policy for a minor's allegations of sexual misconduct against a female teacher.

The item is posted on the Internet at:

https://stlrecord.com/stories/512394901-judge-rules-safeco-insurance-not-responsible-for-coverage-of-teacher-s-sexual-misconduct-allegations?utm_source=St.+Louis+Record&utm_campaign=e040c38a45-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_226e302527-e040c38a45-73836803

An environmental group has been granted the right to act on behalf of four of its members in an action against the owners of a coal-fired power plant on the Mississippi River. 

The item is posted on the Internet at:

https://stlrecord.com/stories/512359052-environmental-group-granted-standing-in-action-against-power-plant-owner?utm_source=St.+Louis+Record&utm_campaign=e040c38a45-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_226e302527-e040c38a45-73836803

Public Schools employee who alleged he was paid less than his female counterparts has lost his case in federal court.

The item is posted on the Internet at:

https://stlrecord.com/stories/512394851-jefferson-city-public-schools-employee-loses-equal-pay-claim-case?utm_source=St.+Louis+Record&utm_campaign=e040c38a45-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_226e302527-e040c38a45-73836803

Immigration attorneys are available to help immigrants across state

Governor Cuomo has announced that 19 full-time attorneys, working in conjunction with Office for New Americans Opportunity Centers, have been selected to provide free legal services to immigrants in every region of New York State.

The New York State Office for New Americans, founded six years ago, is the nation's first statutorily created immigrant services office. ONA has Opportunity Centers across the State that are hosted in community-based organizations that deliver a host of services and support, including legal services, to New York's new American communities. These sites are the focal point for communities to embrace immigrants by providing them with the tools necessary to thrive and contribute to our state.

In 2017, Governor Cuomo launched the Liberty Defense Project - the first-in-the-nation, state-led public-private project - to assist immigrants regardless of status in obtaining access to legal services. The project is administered by ONA and run in partnership with law firms, legal associations, advocacy organizations, major colleges and universities and bar associations.

The LDP provides:

Free legal consultations and screenings for immigrants throughout New York State;

Direct representation to immigrants in deportation proceedings as well as other cases;

Assistance with other immigration legal services, particularly for complex matters; and

Know Your Rights training for immigrants and the community at large.

 

The attorneys will located as follows:

• Capital Region - Women's Bar Association Legal Project, Inc. (2 attorneys)
• North Country - Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society (2 attorneys)
• Mohawk Valley - Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society (2 attorneys)
• Central New York - Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society (2 attorneys)
• Southern Tier - Journey's End Refugee Services (2 attorneys)
• Finger Lakes - Journey's End Refugee Services (2 attorneys)
• Western New York - Journey's End Refugee Services (2 attorneys)
• Hudson Valley - Catholic Charities Community Services, Archdiocese of New York (2 attorneys)
• Long Island - New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) (1 attorney)
• New York City - New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) (2 attorneys)

ONA Legal Counsels will travel within their regions to meet the needs of immigrants in their communities. Services will be available at legal clinics at community-based organizations within each region. Direct representation for clients in need of assistance will be available, and ONA Legal Counsels will also conduct legal seminars and workshops. Grantees will provide translation and interpretation services for non-English-speaking new American clients.

 

ONA Legal Counsels will provide direct representation to immigrants in immigration-related proceedings using a "universal representation" model that serves any immigrant in need of legal representation in New York State.

 

Each ONA Legal Counsel in upstate regions will provide legal representation to a caseload of 15 to 20 clients at a time. Downstate ONA Legal Counsels will handle between 12 to 20 cases, depending on the specific region. Immigration legal services provided by the ONA Legal Counsel will include the following cases and services, but not be limited to:

• Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
• Asylum
• U visas
• T visas
• Temporary Protected Status
• Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
• Violence Against Women Act
• Removal proceedings, for those currently detained or not, including those with a prior order of removal
• Work permits
• Bond hearings
• Board of Immigration Appeals
• Federal litigation
• Advanced parole
• Family reunification
• Family-based immigration
• Complex naturalization
• Family guardianship

All services provided will be offered at no charge to clients.

 

Any immigrant that needs free legal assistance is urged to call the New Americans Hotline at 1-800-566-7636. All call information is confidential. Assistance is available in 200+ languages.

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits were issued during the week ending April 5, 2019

 Links to material posted on the Internet highlighted in COLOR

Department of Financial Services (DFS): Oversight of the Title Insurance Industry (2017-S-10) While DFS has worked to strengthen its oversight of the industry through the regulatory process, enforcement of the existing regulations has lagged.

Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS): Access Controls Over Selected Critical Systems (2017-S-56) Controls over six OCFS systems containing confidential information were insufficient to prevent unnecessary or inappropriate access to those systems. Auditors identified 367 user accounts with inappropriate access because OCFS had not performed the required annual reviews of user accounts. This included 35 active user accounts for individuals who no longer worked for OCFS.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA): New York City Transit: Practices Used by the Transit Adjudication Bureau (TAB) to Collect Fines and Fees (Follow-Up) (2018-F-20) An initial report issued in August 2016 determined that approximately half the fines and fees assessed by the TAB are never fully collected. In addition, inaccurate information written on summonses, such as bad addresses and false telephone numbers, contributes to collection difficulties. In a follow-up, auditors found the MTA made progress in implementing the recommendations contained in the initial report.

Department of Health (DOH): Examination of Travel Expenses (2017-BSE01-02) Auditors found $9,760 of a DOH employee’s expenses were not appropriate. This includes lodging, meal, and fuel expenses for which there was no business purpose, meal allowance expenses the employee was not entitled to receive, meal per diem expenses that exceeded the maximum allowable rates and inflated transportation reimbursements. Auditors also found the employee incurred $37,795 in questionable travel expenses.

State Education Department (SED): Examination of Payments to Tough Man Inc. (2018-BSE2-001) Tough Man is a not-for-profit corporation formed to sponsor community sporting events such as walks and races in New York. SED made five payments totaling $150,000 under contracts for services provided from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2017. The contracts provide funding for Tough Man to provide an in-school program to students and to operate triathlons for kids and teens. Auditors found SED did not request, as required, sufficient evidence to demonstrate the expenses claimed were incurred for contract purposes and exceeded program revenues and other reimbursements by $150,000. There is also risk Tough Man did not keep such records.

Find out how your government money is spent at Open Book New York. Track municipal spending, the state's 160,000 contracts, billions in state payments and public authority data.