ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL

January 16, 2016

Selected Reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending January 16, 2016


Selected Reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending January 16, 2016
Click on text highlighted in color to access the full report

Erie County Community College - Audit Highlights
 
Officials at Erie Community College (ECC) gave more than $100,000 in raises and bonuses to senior officials without proper approval, according to an audit released on January 14, 2016by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.
 
DiNapoli’s auditors discovered during the period of September 2010 through February 2015, college officials created 10 senior executive positions with annual salaries averaging $75,600 and totaling $756,000 without written authorization from the board of trustees. The college also provided these employees with benefits including health insurance and retirement benefits with an annual cost of more than $200,000.

As noted in the audit, college officials also made questionable compensation payments to two senior executives totaling $77,000 and increased the salaries of all senior executives by 2 percent, totaling $27,000, again without board approval.

According to State University of New York regulations governing community colleges, the ECC board lacked authority to delegate the power to establish salaries and approve raises.

The Comptroller’s audit also revealed:

The leave records of senior executives were inaccurate and, as a result, executives accumulated $25,000 worth of leave time they were not entitled to;

A retired executive cashed out an overstated leave balance upon separation, resulting in a $2,500 overpayment;

The college paid 11 professional service providers a total of $440,000 without using requests for proposals (RFP) or other required competitive processes;

The college did not enter into written contracts with eight professional service providers for services totaling $342,000, as required; and

Financial transactions between the college and the Erie Community College Foundation and the Auxiliary Services Corporation of
Erie Community College were not documented properly or conducted in a transparent manner.

The Comptroller made a series of recommendations to ECC to improve oversight, accountability and transparency of college operations.

Recommendations to the board of trustees include:

Ensure significant financial decisions such as the creation and funding of new positions are conducted in an open and transparent manner;

Authorize all salaries, compensation and fringe benefits provided to senior executives;

Adopt comprehensive time and attendance policies for senior executives;

Enter into written contracts with professionals establishing the services to be provided, the time frames for those services and the basis for compensation;

Ensure that written agreements with affiliated entities stipulate how performance will be measured and evaluated; and

Review student activity fee allocations provided to and used by clubs and organizations to determine whether the amount of the fee is appropriate and necessary.

Additional recommendations to college administrators include:

Ensure that all official action taken by the board, including actions pertaining to salaries and benefits, are recorded in the board minutes;

Procure professional services using a competitive method such as an RFP process; and

Review documentation to verify that the college has obtained state contract pricing.

Although ECC officials did not agree with all of the audit findings, it was indicated the board of trustees has already taken action to address a number of recommendations made in the report.

The audit report and the college’s response are posted on the Internet at:  http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/colleges/2016/eriecommunity.pdf


State audits released

Dept. of Health -
Suspicious and Fraudulent Medicaid Payments to Affiliated Brooklyn Dentists – Follow-Up F-24
 An initial audit issued in April 2013, identified about $2.3 million in highly suspicious and possibly fraudulent Medicaid claims that were submitted by the six affiliated dentists. The affiliated dentists created false entries in medical records to support claims, and that it was not possible to perform all of the procedures the dentists billed in relation to the hours their offices were open. In addition, the dentists paid staff to recruit Medicaid recipients to their offices. In a follow-up, auditors determined DOH made progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report. At the time of the follow-up review, the state was paid $681,336 in restitution. Additionally, four dentists were removed from the Medicaid program and the remaining two dentists were prohibited from receiving Medicaid payments.

Dept. of Health – Medicaid Program: Overpayments of Ambulatory Patient Group
An initial audit issued in August 2013, identified flaws in DOH’s eMedNY claims processing system that allowed improper APG payments on 6,615 claims totaling $1,204,186. Auditors also identified $933,399 in duplicate payments that were made to providers for the same services under both the old and the new (APG) payment methodologies. Furthermore, auditors identified 56,241 claims totaling $4,286,603 that were at risk of duplicate payment and needed to be reprocessed using the new APG methodology. In a follow-up, auditors found DOH has made significant progress in implementing the recommendations made in the initial audit, which included recovering nearly $898,000 in overpayments and implementing new claims processing controls to prevent future improper payments.

United HealthCare Insurance Co. of NY – Empire Plan Drug Rebates
In accordance with its contract, United is required to negotiate agreements with drug manufacturers for rebates, discounts, and other considerations and pass 100 percent of the value of the agreements on to the prescription drug program. United subcontracted key functions of the prescription drug program to Medco Health Solutions, which was subsequently bought by Express Scripts Holding Company. Auditors found United did not credit the state $371,635 in rebates because manufacturer agreements utilized to obtain rebates for the Empire Plan’s prescription drug program did not meet or exceed Express Scripts’ best existing rebate agreements for other clients, as required. Express Scripts did not invoice, collect, or allocate $196,845 in rebates due to errors in the rebate process, and Express Scripts retained rebates of $141,804 despite its contractual requirement to remit those funds.

NYS Health Insurance Program – Empire BlueCross BlueShield – Selected Payments for Selected Items Follow-Up F-21
An initial audit issued in December 2013, found that Empire did not have adequate controls to ensure special items were paid according to contract provisions. As a result, from January 1, 2012through June 30, 2012, Empire made a net overpayment of $391,894 on 81 claims for special items. In a follow-up, auditors found Empire made considerable progress in implementing the recommendations made in the initial audit report, which included recovering $368,917 in overpayments.

NYS Health Insurance Program – Empire BlueCross BlueShield – Selected Payments for Selected Items Follow-Up F-22
During the six-month period July 1, 2012through December 31, 2012, Empire made a net overpayment of $898,541 on 96 claims from hospitals that had contracts with Empire that limited the amounts that should have been charged for special items. In a follow-up, auditors found Empire officials made considerable progress in implementing the recommendations made in our initial audit report, which included recovering $639,896 in overpayments.
 
Department of Health – Medicaid Overpayments
Medicaid made $1.6 million in actual overpayments and up to $5.3 million in potential overpayments because separate payments were made for recipients transferred among merged or consolidated facilities. Since the recipients were transferred between merged or consolidated facilities only one payment should have been made. DOH did not enforce their regulations regarding Medicaid reimbursements for hospital transfer claims among merged or consolidate facilities. Further, DOH lacks an automated mechanism to identify merged hospitals and, as a result, it cannot readily detect or prevent inappropriate payments for inpatient transfers among these facilities.

Special Education Services Audits

In 2013, the state enacted legislation requiring the Comptroller to audit the expenses reported to the State Education Department by every program provider of special education services for preschool children with disabilities at least once by
March 31, 2018. On January 15, 2016, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the following audits have been issued:

Mid Island Therapy Associates; Compliance with Reimbursable Cost Manual
For the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2013, auditors identified $655,055 in reported costs that did not comply with SED requirements and recommend such costs be disallowed. These ineligible costs included $621,191 in personal service costs and $33,864 in other than personal service costs.

Kew Gardens SEP Inc.; Compliance with Reimbursable Cost Manual
For the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2013, auditors identified $295,997 in reported costs that did not comply with SED requirements and recommend such costs be disallowed. The ineligible costs included $283,649 in personal service costs and $12,348 in other than personal service costs.

Just Kids Early Childhood Learning Center, Compliance with Reimbursable Cost Manual
For the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2014, auditors identified $417,994 in reported costs that did not comply with SED requirements and recommend such costs be disallowed. These ineligible costs included $229,117 in personal service costs and $188,877 in other than personal service costs.

Words ‘N Motion Special Education Programs, Compliance with Reimbursable Cost Manual
For the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2013, auditors identified $135,174 in reported costs that did not comply with the Manual’s requirements, and we recommend such costs be disallowed. The ineligible costs included $64,790 in personal service costs and $70,384 in other than personal service costs.

Kid’s-Centric, Inc., Compliance with Reimbursable Cost Manual
For the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2013, auditors identified $301,601 in reported costs that did not comply with Manual requirements and recommend such costs be disallowed. These ineligible costs included $139,267 in personal services costs and $162,334 in other than personal service costs.

United Community Service, Inc., Compliance with Reimbursable Cost Manual
For the three fiscal years ended
June 30, 2014, we identified $207,295 in reported costs that did not comply with the Manual’s requirements and recommend such costs be disallowed. These ineligible costs included $154,991 in personal service costs and $52,304 in other than personal service costs, as follows:

Orange County Cerebral Palsy Association, Compliance with Reimbursable Cost Manual
For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, Inspire claimed $226,382 in ineligible costs for its six rate-based preschool special education programs, including $149,768 in personal service costs and $76,614 in other than personal service costs.

Newmeadow, Compliance with Reimbursable Cost Manual
For the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2014, auditors identified $12,059 in costs charged to the preschool special education programs that did not comply with SED’s requirements for reimbursement. The non-reimbursable costs included $3,897 in personal service costs and $8,162 in other-than-personal-service costs. Auditors also found unreported less-than-arm’s-length relationships that Newmeadow should have disclosed.

Story Place Preschool, Inc., Compliance with Reimbursable Cost Manual
For the year ended
June 30, 2014, auditors determined Story Place reported $5,150 in personal service costs that did not comply with SED’s requirements for reimbursement.

Rivendell School, Compliance with Reimbursable Cost Manual
For the three fiscal years ended June 30, 2014, auditors identified $536,449 in reported costs that did not comply with SED requirements and recommend such costs be disallowed. These ineligible costs included $70,644 in personal service costs and $465,805 in other than personal service costs.
http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093016/15s25.pdf

  
Municipal Audits

Town of Elmira – Financial Condition

Town of Hunter – Cash receipts and Board oversight

Town of Irvington – Selected financial activities

Long Island Workforce Housing – Local Governments compliance with the Act

Syracuse Industrial Development AgencyProject Approval and Monitoring and Administration of the Development Fund


School Audits

 

Inlet Common School District Claims auditing

Lockport City School District – Monitoring transportation contracts and costs

Morris Central School District – Financial operations

Putnam Central School District – Budgeting

Springville-Griffith Institute Central School District– Financial Management

Three Village Central School District– Fuel inventories

 

January 15, 2016

Overtime paid to a police officer on “special-duty” for service performed for a private entity not included in determining the officer’s “final average salary” for retirement purposes


Overtime paid to a police officer on “special-duty” for service performed for a private entity not included in determining the officer’s “final average salary” for retirement purposes
Gilles v DiNapoli, 2015 NY Slip Op 09342, Appellate Division, Third Department

Peter Gilles, a member of the Town of Greenburgh Police Department, received overtime pay for occasionally volunteering to work “special-duty details.” These special-duty details involved police services provided to private entities that paid the Town for such services.

Upon his retirement, the New York Stateand Local Retirement System notified Gilles that the compensation he received for such special-duty detail services would not be included in determining his final average salary for retirement allowance purposes.

Gilles objected and a hearing was held. The Hearing Officer ruled that Gillles’ compensation for working on special-duty details would not be included in determining his final average salary.

The Comptroller affirmed the Hearing Officer’s determination stating, in part, that Gilleshad "failed to sustain his burden of proving that he [was] eligible to have included in the calculation of his final average salary those payments received for services rendered to private entities and for which the employer [was] reimbursed by the private entities."

Stated another way, the Comptroller concluded that that Gilles did not provide services to the police department while he was on such special-duty details.

Gilles then filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 challenging the Comptroller's determination.

The Appellate Division rejected Gilles’ appeal noting that “The relevant issues [in Gilles] are the same as in [its] recently decided case of Matter of Tamucci v DiNapoli (133 AD3d 960 [2015]), and, for the reasons set forth therein, [it] confirm” the Comptrollers decision.

NYPPL’s summary of the Tamucci decision is posted on the Internet at http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2015/11/overtime-paid-to-police-officer-for.html

In that posting it was noted that an off-duty police officer injured while he or she was off-duty and working for a private employer may not be eligible for General Municipal Law §207-c benefits or Retirement and Social Security Law accidental disability or service disability retirement benefits.

Further, a police officer off-duty and working for a private employer may not be eligible for "defense and indemnification" by his or her public employer pursuant to §18 of the Public Officers Law should he or she be sued concerning an event that occurred in the course of his or her working for a private employer.

The Disability Benefits E-book – 2016 Edition This electronic handbook addresses similar situations. For more information click on http://section207.blogspot.com/

The Tamucci decision is posted on the Internet at:

The Gilles decision is posted on the Internet at:
 http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_09342.htm
.

January 14, 2016

Comptroller has the exclusive authority to weigh the evidence and credit the opinion of one medical expert over that of another medical expert when reviewing an application for disability retirement


Comptroller has the exclusive authority to weigh the evidence and credit the opinion of one medical expert over that of another medical expert when reviewing an application for disability retirement
Sugrue v New York State Comptroller, 2015 NY Slip Op 09595, Appellate Division, Third Department

Michael G. Sugrue, a correction officer, suffered injuries at work and applied for disability retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15.

Sugrue claimed that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties as the result of injuries he suffered to his right shoulder, his right wrist and middle fingers of his right hand. Following a hearing, the Hearing Officer found that Sugrue failed to establish that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties.

The State Comptroller adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and denied Sugrue’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits and Sugrue filed an Article 78 petition seeking to have the court vacate the Comptroller’s determination.

Sugrue’s medical expert witness, a neurologist, opined that Sugrue was permanently disabled from the performance of his job duties “due to a median nerve injury at the right wrist, evidenced by positive Phalen's maneuver and Tinel's sign test results, an inability to flex and extend the first three fingers of his right hand and right carpal tunnel syndrome, finding that carpal tunnel surgery performed on petitioner was unsuccessful.”

On the other hand, the Retirement System’s medical expert, an orthopedic surgeon, found that Sugrue “had full range of motion of his shoulder, right wrist and fingers and concluded that [Sugrue’s] carpal tunnel syndrome was treated successfully and had resolved.”

Based on his findings, the System’s expert opined that Sugrue was not permanently disabled from performing the duties of a correction officer. The Appellate Division also noted that the System’s expert performed an independent medical examination of Sugrue and concluded that “based upon negative Phalen's maneuver and Tinel's sign test results, [Sugrue’s] range of motion and a lack of swelling of the wrist, that no further treatment to petitioner's right wrist was necessary.”

The Appellate Division confirmed the Comptroller’s decision, explaining that Sugrue bore the burden of establishing that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties. "Where, as here, there is conflicting medical evidence, the Comptroller is vested with the exclusive authority to weigh such evidence and credit the opinion of one medical expert over another."

The court said that inasmuch as the Retirement System’s expert offered a rational, fact-based opinion based upon a physical examination and a review of Sugrue's medical records, the Comptroller's denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed, despite the existence of other evidence to support a contrary conclusion.

The court then turned to Sugrue’s remaining claims, including his claim that the Hearing Officer should have recused himself, and “found to be without merit.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

_______________________

The Disability Benefits E-book – 2016 Edition: This 810 page e-book focuses on disability benefits available to officers and employees in public service pursuant to Civil Service Law §§71, 72 and 73, General Municipal Law §207-a and §207-c, the Retirement and Social Security Law, the Workers’ Compensation Law, and similar provisions of law. For more information click on: http://section207.blogspot.com/
 _______________________



January 12, 2016

Motions to have an administrative law judge recuse himself or herself from presiding at a disciplinary hearing


Motions to have an administrative law judge recuse himself or herself from presiding at a disciplinary hearing
New York City Dept. of Environmental Protection v Giacia, OATH Index No. 211/16, [Memorandum Decision]

In the course of an employee disciplinary proceeding, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection asked New York City Office of Administrative Tribunals and Hearing Administrative Law Judge John B. Spooner to recuse himself, alleging that Judge Spooner was bias against the agency.

The Department had earlier made similar motions in two prior cases presided over by Judge Spooner in which it alleged Judge Spooner had made statements demonstrating “enmity towards the agency.”

Judge Sooner found that the statements attributed to him did not suggest bias or prejudice against the agency but were simply relevant to determining the appropriate penalty, noting that the fact that he had agreed with some of the arguments made by the employee’s counsel when assessing the penalty to be imposed was not a basis for finding bias against the Department. The Department’s recusal motions in those hearing were denied.

Judge Spooner noted that OATH rules provide that an OATH administrative law judge “shall be disqualified for bias, prejudice, interest, or any other cause for which a judge may be disqualified in accordance with §14 of the Judiciary Law.”*

None of the remarks quoted, said Judge Spooner, demonstrate “bias” or “prejudice” against the Department, noting that “The remark that the Department alleged displayed some 'animus toward [the Department]' was based upon statements made during the disciplinary hearing “to explain the factors considered in arriving at a penalty recommendation and for no other purpose, any more than sustaining disciplinary charges would be a basis for finding bias against all employees.”

Citing Jump v Jump, 268 AD2d 709, Judge Spooner noted that, in general, “a judge’s presiding over and rendering decisions in prior cases involving one of the parties has not been held to warrant recusal or disqualification.”

In People v Glynn, 21 NY3d 614, the Court of Appeals said that “Unless disqualification is required under Judiciary Law §14, a judge's decision on a recusal motion is one of discretion.”

*§14 of the Judiciary Law provides for the “Disqualification of judge by reason of interest or consanguinity.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

January 11, 2016

School Board asks the Commissioner of Education to remove the president of the school board from the position


School Board asks the Commissioner of Education to remove the president of the school board from the position
City of Gloversville School Board v Semione, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision 16,857

In this appeal to the Commissioner of Education the Board of Education Gloversville City School District [Petitioner] sought the removal of Peter Semione  as a board member and president of the school board.

Petitioner’s application was based on allegations that Semione  made inappropriate public and private statements to other board members that Petitioner characterized as having “engaged in a course of conduct which is a distraction to the board and the regular conduct of its business.”

Addressing a number of procedural issues, the Commissioner ruled that the application must be denied as untimely. The Commissioner explained that such an appeal must be commenced within 30 days from the making of the decision or the performance of the act complained of, unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown. Further, said the Commissioner, the 30-day limitation period also applies to a removal application made pursuant to Education Law §306.*

Here the specific actions cited by Petitioner in support of its application occurred on two days, August 31 and September 1, 2012.  The affidavit of service indicates the appeal was served on November 27, 2012, beyond the required 30-day period. Although Petitioner cites the service date as November 21, 2012, the Commissioner noted “that date is also outside the required 30-day period.”

Petitioner also asserted that it had to retain outside legal counsel because the school district’s attorney recused himself, thus contributing to the delay.  However, said the Commissioner, Petitioner fails to indicate when that recusal took place, nor is Petitioner’s decision to retain outside counsel, without further details, sufficient to excuse the delay. 

Finally, the Commissioner said that the appeal must also be dismissed as moot, taking judicial notice that respondent Semione is no longer a member of the board and only matters in actual controversy are ripe for appeal, explaining that a decision on a state of facts which no longer exist or which subsequent events have laid to rest will not be addressed.

Turning to the merits of Petitioner’s appeal, the Commissioner said “A member of the board of education or a school officer may be removed from office pursuant to Education Law §306 when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the board member or school officer has engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law or has willfully disobeyed a decision, order, rule or regulation of the Board of Regents or Commissioner of Education.” Further, said the Commissioner, “Removal may be warranted where a board member's improper conduct occurs during a board meeting and disrupts the meeting or interferes with the board's ability to function.”

In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief. Noting that Respondent denied engaging in the alleged conduct the Commissioner said that aside from statements set out in its petition, Petitioner failed to submit any supporting affidavits from any board member establishing the facts alleged – that they were harassed or threatened by Respondent or that the board could not function as a result of his alleged conduct. 

In addition, the Commissioner observed that although Semione  may have used profanity in speaking to several board members, “the use of profanity and failure to apologize is not by itself, enough to warrant removal.”

Accordingly, the Commissioner ruled that Petitioner has not carried its burden in establishing the facts on which it bases its application.**

The Commissioner dismissed Petitioner’s application and dismissed the appeal.

* In addition, a removal application may be timely commenced within 30 days of the petitioner’s good faith discovery of the alleged conduct even though the actual conduct occurred more than 30 days before the application was instituted 

** The decision also notes that Petitioner alleged that Respondent had engaged in a willful violation of law warranting removal, i.e., his conduct also constituted Aggravated Harassment in the second degree, as defined in §240.30 of the New York State Penal Law but failed to submit any evidence of pending charges or a conviction against Respondent and has therefore not carried its burden of proof in this regard. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

January 09, 2016

Selected Reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending January 9, 2016


Selected Reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending January 9, 2016
Click on text highlighted in color to access the full report

Former Wallkill fire district chair sentenced in $240,000 theft
State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reported that on January 8, 2016 former Wallkill Fire District board chair Michael Denardo was sentenced in Ulster County Court for stealing nearly $240,000 from the district. He pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the third degree, a class D felony, and three counts of criminal tax fraud in the fifth degree, a misdemeanor. He was sentenced to 2 1/3 to 7years in prison and to pay $239,622 restitution. 

Denardo;s three-year scam was initially revealed in an audit and investigation by DiNapoli’s office, which found that Denardo convinced the treasurer to give him blank checks and another board member to sign them. He deposited the checks, laundered the money through his wife's account and submitted fake bills to the district.

Ulster County District Attorney Holley Carnright thanked the Comptroller and his staff “for their diligent work on this case [as] a valued partner in our efforts to combat fraud crimes in Ulster County.”

The Comptroller’s audit concluded that Denardo could not have committed his crimes if the fire district board enforced proper controls. DiNapoli recommended that the district. The Fire District officials agreed with the audit findings and submitted a 14-point corrective action plan to the Comptroller’s office.
 
The Comptroller findings and the fire district’s full response are in the final audit report, which can be viewed by clicking on the URL set out below.
http://osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/firedists/2016/wallkill.pdf.


Theft of State Pension Benefits
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced the sentencing of Terence Fitzpatrick, 53, of Monmouth County, N.J., following his guilty plea in November 2015 to the crime of Attempted Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a class D felony, in Albany County Court. Fitzpatrick was sentenced to six months in jail and five years of probation.


NYC Pre-K Special Education Provider claimed almost $3 million in ineligible expenses
A Brooklyn preschool special education provider, Yeled v’Yalda Early Childhood Center, claimed nearly $3 million in ineligible expenses for reimbursement, according to and audit released by the Comptroller.
 


Municipal Audits Released


Central NY Regional Market Authority – Internal Controls Over Selected Fiscal Operations

Town of Coeymans – Financial Condition

Village of Green Island – Water Fund Financial Condition
  
Town of Peterburgh - Internal Controls Over Selected Fiscal Operations and the Justice Court
  
Village of Pomona – Financial Condition

Seneca County Industrial Development Agency – Project Approval and Monitoring

School Audits Released

Johnson City Central School District – Financial Condition

Kings Park Central School District – Fuel Inventory

Menands Union Free School District - Payroll

Nanuet Union Free School District – Payroll

.
 

January 08, 2016

Injuries sustained by a trainee during a training exercise ruled the result of an accident for the purposes of claiming eligibility for accidental disability retirement benefits


Injuries sustained by a trainee during a training exercise ruled the result of an accident for the purposes of claiming eligibility for accidental disability retirement benefits
Gakhal v Kelly, 2016 NY Slip Op 00003, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court dismissed Paramjit Gakhal’s Article 78 petition seeking an order annulling the NYC Police Pension Fund’s determination rejecting her application for accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits.

The Appellate Division, Judge Sweeny dissenting,* reversed the Supreme Court’s determination “on the law” and remanded the matter to the Fund for a “new determination” consistent with the majority’s decision.

Gakhal’s injury occurred on the first day of her learning to ride a motor scooter as part of her normal police training. She lost control of the scooter while navigating on a motor scooter obstacle course and “crashed into a metal barrier at a speed of 40 miles per hour.” The barrier and scooter then both fell on top of Gakhal.

The Appellate Division, noting that an accident for the purposes of claiming eligibility for ADR is defined as a "sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact," and that the commanding officer of the training unit characterized the incident as "unexpected," concluded that Gakhal’s injury was the result of an event that qualified her for ADR benefits.

The court, citing Becker v Ward, 169 AD2d 453, explained that while injuries sustained during routine training exercises typically may not qualify for ADR benefits, ruled that in Gakhal’s case the loss of control of the scooter she was operating, coupled with the scooter's acceleration, “appears to have ‘been sudden and out of the ordinary,’” and remanded the matter to the Fund for a “new determination” consistent with the majority’s decision.

* Judge Sweeny, in his dissent, said “although the commanding officer's subjective observation that the incident was ‘unexpected’ is favorable for [Gakhal], there is credible objective evidence that the incident was not an ‘accident’” and opined that “the Board's determination must stand.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
___________________________


The Disability Benefits E-book: - This 810 page e-book focuses on disability benefits available to officers and employees in public service pursuant to Civil Service Law §§71, 72 and 73, General Municipal Law §207-a and §207-c, the Retirement and Social Security Law, the Workers’ Compensation Law, and similar provisions of law. For more information click on: http://section207.blogspot.com/

___________________________




January 07, 2016

Minor gaps and errors in the hearing transcript made at an administrative hearing did not preclude meaningful review of the hearing



Minor gaps and errors in the hearing transcript made at an administrative hearing did not preclude meaningful review of the hearing
Faisal v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 09431, Appellate Division

Muhammad Faisal brought an Article 78 action to review a determination of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Appeals Board confirming a determination of an administrative law judge [ALJ]. The ALJ, after a hearing, found that Faisal violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §1180(d), speeding, and revoked his driver license.

The Appellate Division confirmed the Appeals Board ruling on the merits, explaining that the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence.

The court noted that the ALJ had “properly relied on the police witness's testimony concerning his visual estimate of the speed of the petitioner's vehicle as well as the reading of the radar device.”

The Appellate Division noted that there was a significant difference between the posted speed limit, which was 40 miles per hour, and the 70 miles per hour at which the police witness visually estimated the speed of Faisal’s vehicle, an estimation that was promptly confirmed by a radar indication that the actual speed was 71 miles per hour.

In the present action Faisal raised certain evidentiary objections that the court said were not raised at the administrative hearing, “when any alleged error might have been cured” and thus these arguments were unpreserved for review.

Also noted were the alleged “minor gaps and errors in the hearing transcript” but, said the court, such alleged omissions do not preclude meaningful review of the hearing.
Faisal’s petition alleged that a police sergeant was the sole witness at the hearing. In contrast, said the court, there is no indication anywhere in the record that Faisal was sworn in as a witness.

However, even assuming that the transcript of the hearing omits certain unsworn statements supposedly interjected by Faisal at some point during the course of the hearing, as alleged in his affidavit submitted to the Appeals Board, the Appellate Division ruled that those statements would not affect the validity of the determination under review.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

January 06, 2016

Terminated after a disciplinary hearing, employee’s Article 78 petition dismissed because he failed to file timely Education Law §3813(1) notice of claim


Terminated after a disciplinary hearing, employee’s Article 78 petition dismissed because he failed to file timely Education Law §3813(1) notice of claim  
Idolor v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 2015 NY Slip Op 09284, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Nassau County [BOCES] filed disciplinary charges against one of its employees, Lucky Idolor. The disciplinary hearing officer found that Idolor was guilty of misconduct and insubordination. BOCES adopted the findings of the hearing officer and dismissed Idolor from his position.

Idolor filed a CPLR Article 78 petition challenging BOCES’ action. BOCES, contending that Idolor petition was untimely because he had failed to comply with the notice of claim requirements set out in Education Law §3813(1), moved to have Idolor’s petition as untimely. Supreme Court granted BOCES’ motion and dismissed Idolor’s petition, whereupon Idolor appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s ruling, explaining that the filing of the §3813(1) notice of claim within three months after Idolor’s claim arose was a condition precedent to his bringing a timely Article 78 action, an action in which he petitioned the court for both [1] equitable relief and [2] for damages.

In Sephton v Board of Education of the City of New York, 99 AD2d 509, [motion for leave to appeal denied, 62 NY2d 605], the Sephton court noted that "the 'tenure rights' of teachers are ... considered a matter in the public interest and therefore §3813 is not applicable to cases seeking to enforce such rights.” However, the court said that the Sephton plaintiffs were seeking “to recover back pay due to the allegedly improper restructuring of their salaries,” and “[s]uch a claim seeks vindication of private rights" and a [timely §3813(1)] notice of claim was a condition precedent to the maintenance of their action seeking to recover back pay. Again, in Mills v County of Monroe, 59 NY2d 307, the court ruled that where a plaintiff seeks private relief, damages, or reinstatement to his or her former position, in this instance for alleged unlawful employment discrimination in violation of the Executive Law, the filing of a timely notice of claim was a condition precedent to Mills' maintaining the lawsuit.


However, a timely appeal to the Commissioner of Education constitutes a “functional” notice of claim required by Section 3813(1) of the Education Law as the court ruled in Mennella v Uniondale UFSD, App. Div., 2nd Dept., 287 AD2d 636, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 98 NY2d 602.
 
N.B. Another “statute of limitations” to be remembered: §3020-a.5.a of the Education Law, Appeal, provides as follows: “a. Not later than ten days after receipt of the hearing officer's [§3020-a ] decision, the employee or the employing board may make an application to the New York state supreme court to vacate or modify the decision of the hearing officer pursuant to section seventy-five hundred eleven of the civil practice law and rules. The court's review shall be limited to the grounds set forth in such section. The hearing panel's determination shall be deemed to be final for the purpose of such proceeding.” Further, subdivision b of §3020-a.5 provides “b. In no case shall the filing or the pendency of an appeal delay the implementation of the decision of the hearing officer.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

 _____________________

The Discipline Book - A 458 page guide focusing on New York State laws, rules, regulations, disciplinary grievances procedures set out in collective bargaining agreements and selected court and administrative decisions concerning disciplinary actions involving state and municipal public officers and employees. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/5215.html
 _____________________
  

January 05, 2016

Work performed by an attorney does not necessarily mean that the resulting work product demanded in the course of discovery is privileged under the attorney-client rule


Work performed by an attorney does not necessarily mean that the resulting work product demanded in the course of discovery is privileged under the attorney-client rule
State of New York, ex rel. Murray v Baumslag, 2015 NY Slip Op 08942, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court, New York County, denied John T. Murray motion for a subpoena requiring Mary Kennedy Baumslag to produce certain records. Murray appealed and the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court’s ruling on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion and granted Murray’s motion.

In a complaint made to the director of the Office of Internal Audit and Management Services [Internal Audit] of nonparty City University of New York [CUNY], Murray alleged that Gilbert Baumslag, a former professor at CUNY, had used public education monies for improper purposes. Internal Audit had conducted an investigation concerning the matter, which resulted in a report with recommendations. A redacted version of the report was provided to Murray.

In an action brought on behalf of the State pursuant State Finance Law §187, New York’s False Claims Act,* to recover allegedly falsely procured and misspent funds, Murray was provided a redacted copy of a report made by Internal Audit. The redacted copy of the report provided Murray had omitted several recommendations and Murray asked for the production of the unredacted version of the report, as well as investigators' notes of their interviews with CUNY and CUNY professors, including Gilbert Baumslag, named in the report.

Murray contended that the redacted material was relevant because it identified the actions recommended by the report and taken by CUNY on the basis of the results of the investigation.**

CUNY claimed that the material sought was “work product” and thus privileged.

The Appellate Division was not persuaded by CCNY’s contention, explaining that CCNY’s “conclusory statement is insufficient to invoke the work-product privilege.” The court also noted that although the director of Internal Audit testified that he is an attorney, he was not an attorney for CUNY and the report which he wrote with a CUNY examiner, who is not an attorney, contains nothing that reflects "legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory or strategy."

The court then said that “[t]he investigators' notes are not protected by the work-product privilege since there is no evidence that the investigators conducted their interviews with Baumslag and other professors allegedly involved in the improper spending in anticipation of litigation.”

CUNY also argued that the material sought by Murray was, “in any event,” not relevant. The Appellate Division ruled that CCNY failed to establish that the discovery sought is "utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious.”

* §188, Definitions, of Article 13 of the State Finance Law, New York’s False Claims Act essentially defines the term “claim” as any request or demand, for money or property that is presented to an officer, employee or agent of the state or a local government while the term “false claim” means “any claim which is, either in whole or part, false or fraudulent.”

** For example, Murray alleged that Baumslag had used public education monies for improper purposes and the Director of Internal Audit had testified that the recommendations may have included asking Baumslag for "reimbursement of expenses."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

January 04, 2016

The employee’s testimony at the hearing differed from statements he gave during an investigative raised a question of credibility for the hearing officer to resolve


The employee’s testimony at the hearing differed from statements he gave during an investigative raised a question of credibility for the hearing orfficer to resolve
Durudogan v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08947, Appellate Division, First Department

The New York City dismissed Agah Durudogan, a New York City police officer, from his position following a disciplinary hearing. This action also had the effect of denying him eligibility for vesting retirement benefits.*

Durudogan appealed and Supreme Court, New York County, granted City of New York’s motion to dismiss his Article 78 petition. The Appellate Division subsequently vacated the lower court’s ruling and treated the proceeding as if it had been transferred to it for a “de novoreview pursuant to CPLR 7804(g),” explaining that Durudogan petition had raised an issue of substantial evidence and should have been initially so transferred to it.

Reviewing the matter de novo, the Appellate Division found that substantial evidence supported the City’s determination that Durudogan was guilty of numerous violations demonstrating his inability to conform his conduct to police department regulations.

Durudogan's contention that "the hearing officer improperly relied on hearsay evidence in finding him guilty of engaging in a verbal and physical domestic dispute" is unavailing said the court, finding that the hearing officer's determination was based on Durudogan's inconsistent statements in that his testimony at the hearing differed from the statements that he gave during an investigative interview. Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, the administrative decision was based on the hearing officer's credibility findings which are entitled to deference.

Further, the Appellate Division noted that “an administrative tribunal can rely upon credible hearsay evidence to reach its determination,” citing Muldrow v NYS Dept. of Correction and Community Supervision, 110 AD3d 425.

Citing Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, the court then found that dismissing Durudogan from the New York City police force was "not shocking to one's sense of fairness” in view of the record which indicated that Durudogan was brought up on five separate charges, based on events that occurred over a three-year period, and he was found guilty of nine of the specifications charged following a hearing.

Considering the possibility of mitigating of the penalty imposed by the City, termination, the Appellate Division concluded that although Durudogan was a decorated officer, with eighteen years of service, who often received high ratings on department evaluations, he also was previously disciplined for insubordination and placed on one-year dismissal probation.

The Appellate Division also noted the ruling in Vecchio v Kelly, 94 AD3d 545, leave to appeal denied 20 NY3d 855, in its decision. 

In Vecchio the court had annulled the Commissioner’s decision to terminate Vecchio in view of the fact it had dismissed certain of the charges brought against him and the remanded the proceeding for the Commissioner's determination of a new penalty. That court further directed that if the Commissioner adhered to imposing the penalty of termination, Vecchio  "should be permitted to apply for vested interest retirement benefits so as to avoid a punishment disproportionate to the offense, namely the extreme financial hardship to his innocent family." The Appellate Division explained that “In Vecchio, unlike here, [that court] found circumstances that warranted restoring Vecchio to a status that made him eligible to apply for the deferred retirement allowance as provided by Administrative Code §13-256(a), (b).

Upon completing its de novoreview the Appellate Division unanimously confirmed the City’s action and dismissed Durudogan petition.

* As Durudogan had less than 20 years of serve at the time of his termination, he lost his entitlement to deferred vested retirement rights upon his dismissal from City's the police force. §13-256 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York explicitly excludes a police officer having less than 20 years of service at the time he or she is discontinued as the result of his or her dismissal, death or retirement from applying for a deferred retirement allowance unless he or she filed an application for a deferred retirement allowance at least 30 days prior to the date of his or her discontinuance from service.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

___________________
A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances - a 618-page volume focusing on New York State court and administrative decisions addressing an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/7401.html

___________________

January 01, 2016

The Disability Benefits E-book, 2016 Edition

The Disability Benefits E-book, 2016 Edition.  

This 800+ page electronic handbook for administrators, union officials and attorneys focuses on disability benefits available to officers and employees in public service pursuant to Civil Service Law §§71, 72 and 73, General Municipal Law §207-a and §207-c, the Retirement and Social Security Law, the Workers’ Compensation Law, and similar provisions of law. 

For additional information click on http://section207.blogspot.com/

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these 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 Blog Editor 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.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: nyppl@nycap.rr.com.