Page 1223 – New York Appellate Digest

/ Negligence

PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT COUPLED WITH HER AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF HER FALL.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff's (Costello's) statement in this slip and fall case, coupled with her affidavit in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, created a question of fact about the cause of her fall:

We reject defendant's argument that Costello will be unable to demonstrate proximate cause in this matter because she was unable, or perhaps unwilling, to immediately ascertain the cause of her fall. Defendant asserts that Costello was equivocal about the cause, based upon her statement that she “believe[d]” that the flooring was bowed. Even assuming that Costello's use, on one occasion, of what might be characterized as a mere figure of speech may be read as an expression of uncertainty about the cause of her fall, her affidavit clarifies any ambiguity. In her affidavit, Costello asserted that the “wood floor . . . was bowed and did not provide [her] with a proper walking surface.” Read together with the testimony of the two nonparty witnesses regarding the uneven, grooved state of the floor, there is adequate record proof to “render other causes [of her fall] sufficiently remote such that the jury [could] base its verdict on logical inferences drawn from the evidence, not merely on speculation” Costello v Pizzeria Uno of Albany, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 04087, 3rd Dept 5-26-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT COUPLED WITH HER AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF HER FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT COUPLED WITH HER AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF HER FALL)

May 26, 2016

MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS.

The Third Department determined the village mayor did not have the authority to ignore the ruling of a hearing officer who found petitioner, a former firefighter, was entitled to General Municipal Law 207-a benefits based upon an on-the-job injury. When the mayor appointed the hearing officer, there was no indication the hearing officer's finding was merely advisory:

Based on the record, we conclude that Supreme Court's initial finding that the Village was not bound by the Hearing Officer's determination was in error. First, and contrary to respondents' argument, without any statutory or negotiated prohibition or direction, the Village was authorized to delegate its decision-making authority to the Hearing Officer … . Second, that the Mayor did, in fact, appoint the Hearing Officer to make a final determination and not a recommendation is apparent from the record before us. Neither the 2010 nor the 2012 appointment was in any way qualified so as to limit the respective Hearing Officers to an advisory role. Matter of McKay v Village of Endicott, 2016 NY Slip Op 04085, 3rd Dept 5-26-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, FIREFIGHTERS, MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS)/GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (FIREFIGHTERS, MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS)/FIREFIGHTERS (GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS)

May 26, 2016

/ Labor Law-Construction Law

ALTHOUGH THE STATE IS THE TITLE OWNER OF PIER 40 ON THE HUDSON RIVER, THE HUDSON RIVER PARK ACT TRANSFERRED LABOR LAW ABSOLUTE LIABILITY TO THE HUDSON RIVER PARK TRUST.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined that the state, although the title owner of the property (Pier 40) where plaintiff was injured by a falling beam, was not subject to absolute liability under the Labor Law. Under the Hudson River Park Act, the day to day operation and management of Pier 40 was transferred to a public benefit corporation, the Hudson River Park Trust. The court was careful to note that leasing property does not relieve the owner of Labor Law liability. However, the terms of the Hudson River Park Act indicated the legislature's intent transfer Labor Law liability to the trust:

Section 5 of the Hudson River Park Act (Uncons Laws § 1645[1]), gives the Trust total “authority over the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of” the park; the Act also gives the Trust the right to receive rents and other revenues generated from the park (see §§ 1646[g], 1647[10]), although ownership and title would remain with the State (see § 1647[2], [3]). Also, notably, the Act directs that the Trust has the capacity to sue and be sued (§ 1647[1][d][v]), and requires that all tort actions commenced against the Trust comply with the notice of claim requirement of General Municipal Law § 50-e (§ 1651). Most importantly, the Act expressly states that “[u]pon the coming into existence of the trust, the trust shall succeed to all contracts, leases, licenses and other legal obligations respecting the park to which its predecessors are a party at or after the effective date of this act” (§ 1645 [1] [emphasis added]). The legislature's use of the term “succeed to” and its reference to all “other legal obligations” of its predecessors clearly reflects an intent to have the Trust take over all legal liability arising out of ownership of the Park's premises. Costa v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 04119, 1st Dept 5-26-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ALTHOUGH THE STATE IS THE TITLE OWNER OF PIER 40 ON THE HUDSON RIVER, THE HUDSON RIVER PARK ACT TRANSFERRED LABOR LAW ABSOLUTE LIABILITY TO THE HUDSON RIVER PARK TRUST)/HUDSON RIVER PARK TRUST (LABOR LAW, ALTHOUGH THE STATE IS THE TITLE OWNER OF PIER 40 ON THE HUDSON RIVER, THE HUDSON RIVER PARK ACT TRANSFERRED LABOR LAW ABSOLUTE LIABILITY TO THE HUDSON RIVER PARK TRUST)

May 26, 2016

/ Appeals, Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS ABOUT AN UNSOLVED 1987 HOMICIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; APPEAL FROM A NONFINAL ORDER ALLOWED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was not entitled to all documents held by the NYC Police Department (NYPD) concerning an unsolved 1987 homicide. The court noted that, although an appeal as of right does not generally lie from a nonfinal order in an Article 78 proceeding, leave to appeal was granted here given the important, substantive issues raised:

NYPD properly withheld the requested materials pursuant to the exemption to FOIL for documents that “are compiled for law enforcement purposes and which, if disclosed, would . . . interfere with law enforcement investigations” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][e][i]). NYPD met its burden of “identify[ing] the generic kinds of documents for which the exemption is claimed, and the generic risks posed by disclosure of these categories of documents” … . In particular, NYPD submitted an affidavit by a detective averring that he was handling an active, ongoing investigation into the homicide, and had recently pursued potential leads. The detective's affidavit established that disclosure of the records could interfere with the active investigation by, among other things, leading to witness tampering or enabling the perpetrator to evade detection. Given the foregoing determination, we need not reach the other exemptions cited by NYPD. Matter of Loevy & Loevy v New York City Police Dept., 2016 NY Slip Op 04099, 1st Dept 5-26-16

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS ABOUT AN UNSOLVED 1987 HOMICIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; APPEAL FROM A NONFINAL ORDER ALLOWED)/APPEALS (REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS ABOUT AN UNSOLVED 1987 HOMICIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; APPEAL FROM A NONFINAL ORDER ALLOWED)

May 26, 2016

/ Insurance Law, Negligence

INSURER’S DUTY TO DEFEND MUST BE DETERMINED SOLELY UPON THE INFORMATION WITHIN THE COMPLAINT, MATTERS OUTSIDE THE COMPLAINT MUST BE RAISED IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR AT TRIAL.

The First Department determined, in this declaratory judgment action, the insurer has the duty to defend the city in this slip and fall case. The fact that information which is outside the four corners of the complaint may indicate the insurer does not have the duty to defend must be raised in a summary judgment motion or at trial:

Under the circumstances presented, the City’s cross motion is granted to the extent of declaring that plaintiff is obligated to defend it in the underlying litigation. The duty of an insurer to provide a defense for its insured is “exceedingly broad,” arising “whenever the allegations of the complaint suggest. . . a reasonable possibility of coverage” … . Accordingly, “a liability insurer has a duty to defend its insured in a pending lawsuit if the pleadings allege a covered occurrence,” even if “facts outside the four corners of those pleadings indicate that the claim may be meritless or not covered” … . Thus, an insurer may be contractually bound to defend “even though it may not ultimately be bound to pay, either because its insured is not factually or legally liable or because the occurrence is later proven to be outside the policy’s coverage” … .

Here, the four corners of the complaint in the underlying action place the allegations squarely within the responsibilities of plaintiff’s insured, triggering the duty to defend. Plaintiff’s primary argument, that the accident was not within its insured’s area of responsibility, is properly made to Supreme Court in a motion for summary judgment dismissing Bari’s complaint or at trial and cannot be resolved by this Court on a motion seeking declaratory relief… . Axis Surplus Ins. Co. v GTJ Co., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 04106, 1st Dept 5-26-16

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER’S DUTY TO DEFEND MUST BE DETERMINED SOLELY UPON THE INFORMATION WITHIN THE COMPLAINT, MATTERS OUTSIDE THE COMPLAINT MUST BE RAISED IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR AT TRIAL)/NEGLIGENCE (INSURER’S DUTY TO DEFEND MUST BE DETERMINED SOLELY UPON THE INFORMATION WITHIN THE COMPLAINT, MATTERS OUTSIDE THE COMPLAINT MUST BE RAISED IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR AT TRIAL)

May 26, 2016

/ Family Law

VISITATION PROPERLY GRANTED TO GRANDMOTHER DESPITE ANIMOSITY BETWEEN GRANDMOTHER AND FATHER.

The Second Department determined Family Court properly found grandmother was entitled to visitation. Animosity between father and grandmother is not a sufficient basis for denial of visitation:

” When a grandparent seeks visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(1), the court must make a two-part inquiry'” … . “First, it must find that the grandparent has standing, based on, inter alia, equitable considerations” … . “If it concludes that the grandparent has established standing to petition for visitation, then the court must determine if visitation is in the best interests of the child” … . “In considering whether a grandparent has standing to petition for visitation based upon circumstances show[ing] that conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene' (Domestic Relations Law § 72 [1]), an essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship,' among other factors” … . The court must also consider ” the nature and basis of the parents' objection to visitation'” … . Matter of Seddio v Artura, 2016 NY Slip Op 04063, 2nd Dept 5-26-16

FAMILY LAW (VISITATION PROPERLY GRANTED TO GRANDMOTHER DESPITE ANIMOSITY BETWEEN GRANDMOTHER AND FATHER)/GRANDMOTHER, VISITATION RIGHTS (VISITATION PROPERLY GRANTED TO GRANDMOTHER DESPITE ANIMOSITY BETWEEN GRANDMOTHER AND FATHER)

May 26, 2016

/ Employment Law

BAR AND SECURITY COMPANY COULD BE LIABLE FOR AN ASSAULT BY A SECURITY GUARD UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants' motion for a directed verdict should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged he was punched and severely injured by a man dressed like other security guards at a bar. The bar (Hiro) and the security company (NEC) could be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. A new trial was ordered:

The trial court erred in granting Hiro's motion for a directed verdict, since there is evidence to support a reasonable jury's finding that plaintiff's assailant was a Hiro employee or an NEC employee who was supervised by Hiro, for whose acts Hiro could have been found liable upon the theory of respondeat superior … . An attack on plaintiff by a security guard could be found to be within the scope of the guard's employment … . Plaintiff's inability to identify his assailant, who left after the incident, does not preclude him from recovery … . Jones v Hiro Cocktail Lounge, 2016 NY Slip Op 04110, 1st Dept 5-26-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (BAR AND SECURITY COMPANY COULD BY LIABLE FOR AN ASSAULT BY A SECURITY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/ASSAULT (BAR AND SECURITY COMPANY COULD BY LIABLE FOR AN ASSAULT BY A SECURITY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/SECURITY GUARDS (BAR AND SECURITY COMPANY COULD BY LIABLE FOR AN ASSAULT BY A SECURITY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (BAR AND SECURITY COMPANY COULD BY LIABLE FOR AN ASSAULT BY A SECURITY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)

May 26, 2016

/ Civil Procedure, Corporation Law

SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO STRIKE DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's demand for a jury trial in this shareholders' derivative action should have been granted. The court noted that a motion to strike a demand for a jury trial can be made anytime up to the opening of trial:

Supreme Court erred in finding that plaintiff in this shareholders' derivative action was entitled to a jury trial, since the claims brought in his capacity as a shareholder were “derivative and therefore equitable in nature” … . Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the motion was not untimely, since a motion to strike a demand for a jury trial may be made at anytime up to the opening of trial … , and we find no prejudice in defendants' delay of a few months, following the restoration of the case to the calendar, in making their motion. Moyal v Sleppin, 2016 NY Slip Op 04107, 1st Dept 5-26-16

CORPORATION LAW (SHAREHOLDERS' DERIVATIVE ACTION IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO STRIKE DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SHAREHOLDERS' DERIVATIVE ACTION IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO STRIKE DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SHAREHOLDERS' DERIVATIVE ACTION (SHAREHOLDERS' DERIVATIVE ACTION IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO STRIKE DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/JURY TRIAL, MOTION TO STRIKE DEMAND FOR (SHAREHOLDERS' DERIVATIVE ACTION IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO STRIKE DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

May 26, 2016

/ Civil Procedure, Fiduciary Duty, Trusts and Estates

EXECUTOR-STATUS (PRIOR TO DEATH) AND FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP DO NOT CREATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED TO SAVE A TIME-BARRED CLAIM.

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the doctrine of equitable estoppel should not have been invoked to save a time-barred claim to real property. The real property was the subject of a 1977 will which placed the property in trust for decedent's children and named defendant executor. In 1988 the property was conveyed to the defendant, but the will was never amended. Supreme Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that defendant's executor-status and familial ties created a fiduciary relationship, requiring defendant to notify plaintiffs of the 1988 transfer. The Third Department held the appointment as executor did not create a fiduciary relationship (prior to death), and the familial relationship, as well, did not create a fiduciary relationship. Therefore, the Third Department ruled, the defendant was not barred, by equitable estoppel, from asserting the statute of limitations defense:

Supreme Court recognized that “concealment without actual misrepresentation may form the basis for invocation of the doctrine [of equitable estoppel] if 'there was a fiduciary relationship which gave [the] defendant an obligation to inform [the] plaintiff of facts underlying the claim'” … . Here, the court found that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that defendant owed them a fiduciary duty to disclose the conveyance when it occurred in 1988 because of her nomination as executor-trustee in the 1977 will, as well as their familial relationship.

We note, however, that the existence of a familial relationship does not equate to a fiduciary relationship for equitable estoppel purposes … . Nor does the mere fact that a will has nominated an executor, in and of itself, create a fiduciary relationship between the nominee and the will's beneficiaries. Indeed, because of the ambulatory nature of a will, a nominated executor is prohibited from acting in a fiduciary capacity until the testator dies … . Similarly, “a testamentary trust cannot become effective prior to the testator's death” … . Picard v Fish, 2016 NY Slip Op 04086, 3rd Dept 5-26-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXECUTOR-STATUS (PRIOR TO DEATH) AND FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP DO NOT CREATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED TO BAR A TIME-BARRED CLAIM)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (EXECUTOR-STATUS (PRIOR TO DEATH) AND FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP DO NOT CREATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED TO BAR A TIME-BARRED CLAIM)/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (EXECUTOR-STATUS (PRIOR TO DEATH) AND FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP DO NOT CREATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED TO BAR A TIME-BARRED CLAIM)

May 26, 2016

/ Arbitration, Employment Law

WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED PUBLIC EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR.

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court should have compelled arbitration of the dismissal of a probationary employee (Woods). The court deemed the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) ambiguous about whether the dismissal of a probationary employee constituted “discipline” within the meaning of the CBA. Therefore it should have been left to the arbitrator to decide whether the CBA governs the dismissal:

Contrary to respondents' interpretation, we do not find that the cited provision of the CBA unambiguously excludes Woods from its coverage. Indeed, it can be read to wholly supplant the referenced provisions of the Civil Service Law and to require a demonstration of “just cause” to discipline any employee in the bargaining unit. While the dissent has concluded that Woods was not disciplined, it is for an arbitrator to interpret and apply the CBA, and we do not have authority to consider the merits of the argument … . Since the CBA provision is ambiguous, an arbitrator must decide whether it governs Woods' dismissal from service, and Supreme Court should have granted the petition to compel arbitration … . Matter of Woods v State Univ. of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 04084, 3rd Dept 5-26-16

ARBITRATION (WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ARBITRATION, WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)/UNIONS (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ARBITRATION, WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)/PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (ARBITRATION, WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (ARBITRATION, WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR)

May 26, 2016

Search Results

PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT COUPLED WITH HER AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF HER FALL.

MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS.

ALTHOUGH THE STATE IS THE TITLE OWNER OF PIER 40 ON THE HUDSON RIVER, THE HUDSON RIVER PARK ACT TRANSFERRED LABOR LAW ABSOLUTE LIABILITY TO THE HUDSON RIVER PARK TRUST.

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS ABOUT AN UNSOLVED 1987 HOMICIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; APPEAL FROM A NONFINAL ORDER ALLOWED.

INSURER’S DUTY TO DEFEND MUST BE DETERMINED SOLELY UPON THE INFORMATION WITHIN THE COMPLAINT, MATTERS OUTSIDE THE COMPLAINT MUST BE RAISED IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR AT TRIAL.

VISITATION PROPERLY GRANTED TO GRANDMOTHER DESPITE ANIMOSITY BETWEEN GRANDMOTHER AND FATHER.

BAR AND SECURITY COMPANY COULD BE LIABLE FOR AN ASSAULT BY A SECURITY GUARD UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO STRIKE DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

EXECUTOR-STATUS (PRIOR TO DEATH) AND FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP DO NOT CREATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED TO SAVE A TIME-BARRED CLAIM.

WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) IS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT ITS APPLICABILITY TO AN ACTION AGAINST A COVERED PUBLIC EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THE CBA GOVERNS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR.

Categories

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