You are here: / / Release Time Certificates, Allowing Full Pay for Police Officers Doing...
,

Release Time Certificates, Allowing Full Pay for Police Officers Doing Union Work, Properly Rescinded Based Upon the Indictment of the Officers

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over a two-justice dissent, determined that police officers who were indicted in connection with a ticket-fixing scheme were properly denied Release Time certificates based upon the indictments.  Release Time certificates are issued by the Office of Labor Relations (OLR) pursuant to the Mayor’s Executive Order 75 (EO 75) and allow full-time leave with pay and benefits for union work:

The right of union-designated employees to be released from their job duties to perform union or joint labor-management activities is established in EO 75, which generally vests the City with broad oversight of employee representatives. Section 4(4) of EO 75 provides:

“Organizing, planning, directing, or participating in any way in strikes, work stoppages, or job actions of any kind, are excluded from the protection or coverage of this Order. Any employees assigned on a full or part-time basis or granted leave of absence without pay pursuant to this Order who participate in such excluded activity may have such status suspended or terminated by the City Director of Labor Relations.”

Section 4(10) provides: “Employees assigned on a full-time or part-time basis or granted leave without pay pursuant to this Order shall at all times conduct themselves in a responsible manner.” Section 5 provides that “[n]othing contained in this Order shall be deemed to have the effect of changing the character of any subject matter hereof which is a managerial prerogative and as a non-mandatory subject of collective bargaining.”

Enforcement of EO 75 is committed to the OLR Commissioner, who may issue implementing rules and regulations. The indictments of the individual petitioners on charges related to a ticket-fixing scheme that include allegations of grand larceny, official misconduct, tampering with public records, and criminal solicitation constitute a sufficient basis for the City to determine that the individual petitioners did not “at all times conduct themselves in a responsible manner” … . Accordingly, OLR was entitled to unilaterally rescind the Release Time certificates. Matter of Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn of the City of New York Inc v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03464, 1st Dept 5-13-14

 

You might also like
THE VALIDATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THE PETITION WAS NOT VERIFIED; THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE OBJECTION WITH DUE DILIGENCE WAIVED IT; ALTHOUGH THE LANGUAGE IN THE PETITION WAS NOT EXACTLY THAT IN CPLR 3021, THE PETITION WAS IN FACT VERIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DOES NOT USUALLY APPLY IN REAR-END COLLISION CASES, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY CAN BE VIOLATED EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO COLLISION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SUDDEN-STOP BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE REFERENCE TO EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRED; STATUTE OF FRAUDS DID NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL BECAUSE IT WAS ALLEGED THERE WAS NEW CONSIDERATION FOR THE PROMISE TO PAY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FIRST DEPT).
AN ANSWER TO AN AMBIGUOUS QUESTION ON AN APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE IS NOT A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION; THEREFORE THE ANSWER DID NOT VOID THE POLICY WHICH REMAINS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT HAD WITHHELD PAYMENT ON THE CONTRACT AS AN OFFSET FOR THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT; THE AWARD OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES TO THE DEFENDANT THEREFORE CONSTITUTED A DOUBLE RECOVERY (FIRST DEPT). ​
EVEN WHERE EVIDENCE OF AN UNCHARGED CRIME IS “INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED” WITH THE NARRATIVE OF CHARGED CRIME, IT MAY BE INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHS ITS PROBATIVE VALUE; HERE THE COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY ABOUT A PRIOR UNCHARGED SEX ACT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER (TOMS) WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE (ROSNER) WHICH WERE NOT DONE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ROSNER’S EMPLOYMENT OR TO FURTHER TOMS’ BUSINESS (FIRST DEPT). ​
Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Negligence Precluded Her Reliance on the Doctrine of Mutual Mistake to Rescind a Valid Oral Contract

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

School District Owed No Duty of Care to Student Struck by Car Before School... Church’s Decision to Terminate Minister Constitutionally Protected Under...