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

January 14, 2023

Determining if a settlement agreement is binding

A settlement agreement signed by an attorney may bind a client even where it exceeds the attorney's actual authority, if the attorney had apparent authority to enter into the agreement (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Popovic v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 180 AD2d 493 [1st Dept 1992]). Under the relevant circumstances in this action, plaintiffs' attorney had, at least, apparent authority to enter into the settlement agreement, and it is binding upon plaintiffs (see Hallock, 64 NY2d at 231). The Appellate Division also opined that plaintiffs implicitly ratified the settlement agreement by making no formal objection for nearly two years before asserting that the attorney's acceptance was unauthorized (see Hawkins v City of New York, 40 AD3d 327). Further, said the court, plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that the settlement agreement was the result of fraud, collusion, or mistake. Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet:

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_00174.htm

January 13, 2023

Touching all the bases when a union wishes to initiate litigation on behalf of its members

An organization such as a union wishing to file a claim on behalf of its members must:

[1] establish that it has organizational standing to bring such claim; 

[2] show that at least one of its members would have standing to sue; 

[3] that it is representative of the organizational purposes it asserts; and 

[4] that the case would not require the participation of individual members. 

Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_07484.htm

Demanding documents pursuant to New York State's Freedom of Information Law The New York's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] requiring that documents requested pursuant Public Officers Law §89(3)(a) be "reasonably described" serves to enable an agency to locate and identify records in question and places the initial burden on the person or entity making a FOIL request to provide a reasonable description of the record[s] sought for this purpose. In the event the custodian of the record denies a FOIL request on this ground, the custodian bears the burden of establishing that the description[s] were insufficient for purposes of locating and identifying the document[s] sought. Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_00015.htm

 

 


January 07, 2023

Selected judicial and quasi-judicial decisions issued during the week ending January 7, 2023

Statute of limitations to initiate a §75 disciplinary action

Disciplinary proceedings brought under §75 of the Civil Service Law must generally be commenced within 18 months after the alleged misconduct occurred. A statutory exception, however, provides that the 18-month limitations period is inapplicable when the misconduct "would, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime". Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet: 

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_00021.htm

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.