You are here: / THE CHALLENGES TO THE PROCEDURES FOR RELIGIOUS AND MEDICAL EXEMPTIONS FROM...

Search Results

/ , , , , ,

THE CHALLENGES TO THE PROCEDURES FOR RELIGIOUS AND MEDICAL EXEMPTIONS FROM THE COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATE FOR NYC TEACHERS, AS WELL AS “LEAVE WITHOUT PAY” FOR THOSE WHO DID NO APPLY FOR AN EXEMPTION, WERE PROPERLY REJECTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the COVID-19 vaccine mandates imposed by the arbitrator for NYC Department of Education (DOE) employees properly survived the hybrid Article 75/78 challenge. The arbitration initiated by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) resulted in the September 10, 2021 Impact Award which established procedures for religious and medical exemptions:

The article 75 claims were properly dismissed, as petitioners lack standing to challenge the Impact Award and failed to join UFT as a necessary party. The article 75 claims also fail on the merits. As to the article 78 claims, petitioners are unable to show that DOE made an error of law or acted irrationally. * * *

Petitioners are similarly situated teachers employed by DOE. All received notification by email that they were being placed on Leave Without Pay (LWOP) status because they were not in compliance with DOE’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate. They were informed that they could not report to their school sites as of Monday, October 4, and that, in order to return to work, they were required to upload proof of having received the first vaccine shot and “E-sign the attestation stating that you are willing to return to your worksite within seven calendar days of submission.” The notifications also summarized the options for separation and leave extensions. Petitioners, with the exception of Loiacono, did not submit proof of vaccination or request religious or medical exemptions. * * *

When a union represents employees during arbitration, only that union — not individual employees — may seek to vacate the resulting award … .

Petitioners also failed to join UFT as a party. UFT advocated successfully for the exemptions, accommodations, and extended benefits for teachers otherwise unwilling to be vaccinated, all of which were prescribed in the Impact Award. Accordingly, UFT would be adversely impacted by a judgment favorable to petitioners and is thus a necessary party (CPLR 1001[a] …). Matter of O’Reilly v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2023 NY Slip Op 00957, First Dept 2-21-23

Practice Point: The individual NYC Department of Education (DOE) employees did not have standing to challenge the results of the COVID-19 vaccine-mandate arbitration initiated by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). The UFT was a necessary party to the challenge but was not made a party. The DOE did not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Essentially the procedures for religious and medical exemptions to the vaccine mandate were upheld. Teachers who did not apply for an exemption and were not vaccinated were deemed properly placed on leave without pay (LWOP).

 

/ ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION OVER THE NEGLECT PROCEEDING UPON LEARNING FATHER HAD COMMENCED A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN TEXAS; THERE WAS NO ASSURANCE FROM THE TEXAS COURT RE: SAFEGUARDING THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court in this neglect proceeding, determined the judge should not have relinquished temporary emergency jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) when father commenced custody proceedings in Texas:

Family Court improperly relinquished emergency jurisdiction for three reasons. First, there is no evidence in this record, and Family Court’s order fails to state any basis for finding, that the Texas court had “home state” jurisdiction, since the child had not resided there for six months immediately preceding commencement of the father’s Texas custody proceeding (Domestic Relations Law §§ 75-a[7]; 76[1][a]). Second, the record and Family Court’s order are also devoid of any factual basis for finding that any of the alternative jurisdictional bases applied to Texas. There is no evidence that the child at that time had a “significant connection” with Texas or that “substantial evidence . . . concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships” was available in Texas (Domestic Relations Law § 76[1][b]). Finally, given the allegations in the neglect petition and the fact that Family Court had been informed … that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services would not investigate whether the father was a danger to the child because the mother and child resided in New York, Family Court should not have relinquished emergency jurisdiction “in the absence of any orders from the Texas court safeguarding the child[]” … .

Moreover, it is not clear whether New York might have had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination under Domestic Relations Law § 76(1)(b), given that the child had not lived in Texas for the preceding six months, had lived in New York with his mother when the father filed his Texas custody petition, and was receiving medical care, attending daycare, and receiving services through ACS here. Accordingly, Family Court should not have denied the mother’s motion without first holding a hearing. Matter of Nathaniel H. (Nathaniel H.–Dayalyn G.), 2023 NY Slip Op 00927, First Dept 2-16-23

Practice Point: The judge in this neglect proceeding should not have relinquished temporary emergency jurisdiction upon learning of father’s custody proceeding in Texas. Findings of fact required by the Domestic Relations Law were not made and there was no assurance the Texas court would safeguard the child.

 

/

A WORKER WHO WAS INJURED IN NEW YORK BUT LIVES IN NEW JERSEY CAN SEEK TREATMENT FROM A NEW JERSEY DOCTOR WHO IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, EVEN IF THE NEW JERSEY PHYSICIAN IS ALSO LICENSED IN NEW YORK (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant, who was injured in New York but resided in New Jersey, was not required to seek treatment from a New Jersey doctor who was authorized to provide treatment by the Board, even where, as here, the New Jersey doctor is also licensed in New York:

“Generally, a workers’ compensation claimant who is injured in New York is entitled to treatment by a physician of his or her choice so long as the physician is licensed to practice in New York and has been authorized by the Board to provide care and treatment to claimants” … . Nevertheless, under our established precedent, “claimants who were injured in New York but [reside in] other states are entitled to receive treatment from qualified physicians in their [home] state” … , as the statutory authorization requirements “could not have been intended to prohibit the retention of a physician in another State in appropriate circumstances” … . We find no basis to deviate from our precedent here, where claimant received medical treatment in his home state of New Jersey from a New Jersey licensed physician.

… 12 NYCRR 323.1 provides … that a New York licensed physician is permitted to seek authorization from the Board to provide medical services under the Workers’ Compensation Law and, being so permitted, “must obtain such authorization prior to treating injured workers under the Workers’ Compensation Law” … . We do not, however, read this provision to require a physician who provides medical services in another state and under a license obtained in that state to nevertheless seek authorization from the Board prior to treating a claimant merely because he or she also happens to be licensed in New York. Matter of Gomez v Board of Mgrs. of Cipriani, 2023 NY Slip Op 00900, Third Dept 2-26-23

Practice Point. A worker who resides in New Jersey and was injured in New York can seek treatment from a New Jersey doctor who is not authorized by the Worker’s Compensation Board, even if the New Jersey doctor is also licensed in New York.

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO SERVE AS THE INTERPRETER FOR HER MOTHER’S DEPOSITION IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; THE CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING A RELATIVE TO SERVE AS AN INTERPRETER ARE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, determined the plaintiff’s daughter should not have been appointed an interpreter for plaintiff’s deposition in this medical malpractice action. The opinion lays out the criteria for when a relative could be allowed to act as an interpreter:

… [W]e hold that the appointment of an individual to serve as interpreter for a relative or to serve as interpreter in an action or proceeding in which the interpreter has personal knowledge of the relevant facts is only permissible under exceptional circumstances. In evaluating whether such circumstances are present, courts must consider the following: (1) whether sufficient information has been disclosed by the party in need of an interpreter to the court and to opposing parties so as to allow for a thorough search for a disinterested interpreter; (2) whether an exhaustive and meaningful search has been conducted for a disinterested interpreter; (3) whether the potential interpreter is the least interested individual available to serve as interpreter; and (4) whether the potential interpreter is capable of objectively translating the testimony verbatim, which may only be assessed after the court has conducted an inquiry of the potential interpreter. Unless the court is satisfied that each of these four elements has been satisfied, then the potential interpreter must not be permitted to serve as interpreter in view of the “danger that [the] witness’ [testimony] will be distorted through interpretation,” “either consciously or subconsciously” … .Zhiwen Yang v Harmon, 2023 NY Slip Op 00893, Second Dept 2-15-23

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff’s daughter should not have been appointed to serve as the interpreter for her mother’s deposition in this med mal case. The court laid out guidelines for the extraordinary circumstances in which a party’s relative may act as the interpreter.

 

/ ,

A RESTITUTION HEARING IS REQUIRED WHEN (1) THE DEFENDANT REQUESTS IT, AND (2) WHEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE AMOUNT IS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, clarified when a restitution hearing is required:

Pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27, in sentencing a criminal defendant, the court may require the defendant to pay restitution of the fruits of an offense for which he or she was convicted. Under certain circumstances set forth in the statute, the court must first conduct a hearing to determine the appropriate amount of restitution. However, this Court’s case law has not consistently articulated the circumstances which trigger the need for a restitution hearing in accordance with the statute. Thus, we take this opportunity to clarify that a restitution hearing is required when either (1) the defendant requests such a hearing, or (2) the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish the appropriate amount of restitution. People v Chung, 2023 NY Slip Op 00880, Second Dept 2-15-23

Practice Point: A restitution hearing is required when a defendant requests it and when the evidence of the amount is insufficient.

 

/ , , ,

THE JUDGE CANNOT, SUA SPONTE, DIRECT ARBITRATION WITHOUT A REQUEST FROM A PARTY; NON-SIGNATORIES TO AN AGREEMENT CONTAINING A FORUM SELECTION PROVISION MAY BE BOUND BY THE PROVISION IF THEY ARE SIGNATORIES TO A RELATED AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, interpreted jurisdiction, forum selection and arbitration provisions in the subject agreements. The decision is fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here. The court summarized its rulings as follows:

This appeal presents novel questions related to jurisdiction, as well as arbitration and forum selection provisions in agreements. The first question is whether, upon reviewing an agreement and determining that an arbitration provision governs, a court should, sua sponte, direct the parties to arbitrate. We hold that a court should not direct parties to arbitrate absent a request from one of the parties.

The second question requires us to examine the circumstances under which non-signatories to an agreement containing a forum selection provision may be bound by that provision consistent with due process. We hold that non-signatories to an agreement may be bound by that agreement’s forum selection provision when they are signatories to a related agreement, which forms part of the same transaction, and are closely related to both the transaction and one of the signatories to the agreement containing the forum selection provision. P.S. Fin., LLC v Eureka Woodworks, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 00877, Second Dept 2-15-23

Practice Point: A judge should not, sua sponte, direct parties to arbitrate pursuant to an agreement absent a request from a party.

Practice Point: Non-signatories may be bound by a forum selection provision in an agreement if they are signatories to a related agreement.

 

/ , ,

THE JUDGE IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE SUSPENDED FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS WITHOUT HOLDING A “BEST INTERESTS” HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this custody proceeding should not have suspended father’s parental access without holding a “best interests of the child” hearing:

“Custody determinations . . . require a careful and comprehensive evaluation of the material facts and circumstances in order to permit the court to ascertain the optimal result for the child” … . Accordingly, “custody determinations should ‘[g]enerally’ be made ‘only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry'” … . “This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interest of a child” … . “[W]here . . . facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a custody hearing is required”… .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in making a final custody determination without a hearing and without inquiring into the best interests of the parties’ children … . Moreover, the court’s mere reliance upon “adequate relevant information,” as opposed to admissible evidence, was improper … . Matter of Dysko v Dysko, 2023 NY Slip Op 00863, Second Dept 2-15-23

Practice Point: Here in this custody action the judge should not have suspended father’s parental access without holding a “best interests of the child” hearing.

 

/ ,

THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT ATTACHED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the failure to submit the business records referred to in plaintiff’s affidavit rendered the affidavit hearsay. Therefore plaintiff bank did not present prima facie proof of defendant’s default:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted an affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer, who averred that he reviewed certain business records maintained by the loan servicer and the defendant defaulted in making payments on the mortgage debt. However, the affiant failed to submit any business record substantiating the alleged default … . “Conclusory affidavits lacking a factual basis are without evidentiary value” … . Even assuming that the subject affidavit established a sufficient foundation for the records relied upon, “it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Accordingly, the affiant’s assertions regarding the defendant’s alleged default, without the business records upon which he relied in making those assertions, constituted inadmissible hearsay … . MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Rashid, 2023 NY Slip Op 00859, Second Dept 2-15-23

Practice Point: An affidavit based upon business records which are not attached is hearsay.

 

/ , , ,

A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT PROPERLY CONVERTED TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; HERE THE PHYSICIAN SUED THE HOSPITAL FOR FAILING TO HONOR A CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENT TO ADMIT PLAINTIFF TO A RESIDENCY PROGRAM; THE PHYSICIAN’S ACTION WAS PRECLUDED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the breach of contract action should not have been converted to an Article 78 and the action was precluded by plaintiff-physician’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies under the Public Health Law. Plaintiff was matched to a residency program at defendant hospital and the hospital was contractually bound to offer the residency to the plaintiff. The hospital sought a waiver which was denied, and the hospital still refused to offer the residency to plaintiff. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and requested a preliminary injunction. Supreme Court improperly converted the action to an Article 78 (mandamus) proceeding and granted the preliminary injunction. The appellate division held a breach of contract action cannot be converted to an Article 78:

Invoking CPLR 103(c), the Supreme Court erroneously converted the subject branch of the plaintiff’s motion and this action into a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. Under CPLR 103(c), courts are empowered to convert a civil judicial proceeding that was brought in the improper form to the proper form and convert a motion into a special proceeding. Here, the court erred in concluding that a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 was the proper form. “[A] CPLR article 78 proceeding is not the proper vehicle to resolve contractual rights” … . “Indeed, it is well settled that mandamus relief lies only to compel the performance of purely ministerial acts, and may not be used when there are other available remedies at law, such as a breach of contract action” … . * * *

Supreme Court should not have rejected the hospital’s argument that the branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for preliminary injunctive relief against it should be denied because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under Public Health Law article 28. Public Health Law § 2801-b(1) makes it an “improper practice” for a hospital to deny, withhold, or terminate professional privileges for a reason unrelated to “patient care, patient welfare, the objectives of the institution or the character or competency of the applicant.” “To enforce the statutory prohibition against improper practices, the Legislature created a two-step grievance process by which a physician may obtain injunctive relief requiring the hospital to restore wrongfully terminated staff privileges” … . “First, the physician must submit a complaint to the [public health and health planning council (hereinafter PHHPC)]” … . “It is the duty of the [PHHPC] to undertake a prompt investigation of the action complained of and to allow the parties to the dispute to submit, in a strictly confidential setting, any relevant information in support of their respective positions” … . “After investigating the physician’s complaint, the [PHHPC] will either direct the hospital to reconsider its decision or inform the parties of its determination that the complaint lacks merit” … . Khass v New York Presbyt. Brooklyn Methodist Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 00851, Second Dept 2-15-23

Practice Point: A breach of contract action is not properly converted to an Article 78 proceeding pursuant to CPLR 103(c).

Practice Point: A hospital’s failure to honor its contractual commitment to admit plaintiff physician to a residency program is subject to administrative remedies under the Public Health Law which must be exhausted before bringing suit.

 

/ ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE PORT AUTHORITY, THE APPLICABLE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM MUST BE SERVED AT LEAST 60 DAYS BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION (NOT 60 DAYS AFTER THE ACCRUAL OF THE ACTION); THEREFORE THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS TIMELY SERVED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Maltese, determined the notice of claim in this slip and fall action against the Port Authority was timely because it was served at least 60 days before the commencement of the action. The statute of limitations for the commencement of the action had been tolled by executive order due to the COVID pandemic:

This appeal involves the intersection of McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 7107, which sets forth conditions precedent for commencing an action against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereinafter the Port Authority), and the executive orders issued by former Governor Andrew Cuomo which tolled time limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 7107 requires that an action against the Port Authority must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues and that a notice of claim must be served upon the Port Authority at least 60 days before the commencement of the action. We hold that where, as here, the deadline to commence an action pursuant to section 7107 was tolled, service of the notice of claim at least 60 days prior to the timely commencement of the action satisfies section 7107. * * *

… [T]the commencement of this action on November 4, 2020, satisfied section 7107 … .

… [T]he plain language of section 7107 makes the deadline to serve a notice of claim dependent upon the date of commencement, unlike other statutes where the time to serve the notice of claim is measured from the date that the cause of action accrues … . … Therefore, the plaintiff’s service of the notice of claim on August 14, 2020, more than 60 days prior to the commencement of the action on November 4, 2020, satisfied the condition precedent set forth in section 7107. Espinal v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2023 NY Slip Op 00844, Second Dept 2-15-23

Practice Point: The statute controlling the timing of a notice of claim against the Port Authority requires service of the notice of claim at least 60 days before the commencement of the action, not 60 days after the accrual of the action.

 

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