You are here: / Employment Law
,

Village Properly Withdrew Its Defense and Indemnification of Officials When Officials Refused a Reasonable Settlement Offer

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman (with a dissent), determined “that a municipality, consistent with its obligations under Public Officers Law, may withdraw its defense and indemnification of current and former municipal officials and officers in a civil action for their failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer, and that First Amendment concerns with respect to the settlement’s nondisclosure clause do not warrant a different conclusion:”

The Freeport Village Code § 130-6 adopts Public Officers Law § 18 (3)(a), which provides that “public entity shall provide for the defense of [an] employee in any civil action or proceeding, state or federal, arising out of any alleged act or omission which occurred or allegedly occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his public employment or duties.”  The Village’s duty to defend and indemnify “shall be conditioned upon: . . . the full cooperation of the employee in the defense of such action or proceeding against the Village based upon the same act or omission” (Freeport Vil. Code § 130-6 [A][1] [emphasis added]; Public Officers Law § 18 [5][ii]). * * *

A municipal employer’s statutory duty to defend a public officer under Public Officers Law § 18 is similar to an insurance company’s contractual duty to defend an insured (Matter of Dreyer v City of Saratoga Springs, 43 AD3d 586, 588 [3d Dept 2007]).  As in the insurance context, petitioners were obligated to cooperate in the defense of the action as a condition of their defense and indemnification (Public Officers Law § 18 [5][ii]; Freeport Vil. Code § 130-6 [A][1]).

“In order to disclaim coverage on the ground of an insured’s lack of cooperation, the carrier must demonstrate that (1) it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) the efforts employed by the carrier were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) the attitude of the insured, after cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction”… . Matter of Lancaster v Incorporated Village of Freeport…, 181, CtApp 11-19-13

 

,

Portions of Covenant Not to Compete Unenforceable/Liquidated Damages Clause Constituted a Penalty

The Fourth Department determined a covenant not to compete was ambiguous with respect to the scope of prohibited activity, unenforceable to the extent it attempted to bind third parties, and the liquidated damages clause in the covenant was an unenforceable penalty:

…[T]he liquidated damages clause is an unenforceable penalty.  Liquidated damages are enforceable only to the extent that they constitute “ ‘an estimate, made by the parties at the time they enter into their agreement, of the extent of the injury that would be sustained as a result of breach of the agreement’ ” … .  Typically, a liquidated damages clause is enforceable if the stipulated amount of damages “bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation” … .  However, if the clause provides for damages “ ‘plainly or grossly disproportionate to the probable loss, the provision calls for a penalty and will not be enforced’ ” … .   Here, although the amount of actual damages is incapable of precise estimation, the amount of liquidated damages was grossly disproportionate to the probable loss and was designed to penalize plaintiff for his interference with the Agreement, as well as the interference of others with the Agreement.  Moreover, the liquidated damages clause here eliminates the balance due under the Agreement based on minor breaches of the covenant not to compete such that it is an “unconscionable penalty and should not be enforced” … .  Del Nero v Colvin…, 911, 4th Dept 11-8-13

 

,

Collective Bargaining Agreement Subsequently Made Retroactive to Cover Period When it Had Expired Did Not Include Firefighters Hired During the Period the Agreement Had Expired

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s determination that newly hired firefighters [hired January 9, 2010] were not eligible, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), for participation in a retirement plan to which they need not contribute a portion of their salary.  The collective bargaining agreement which would have allowed participation in the noncontributory program had expired at the time the firefighters were hired and was made effective retroactively when it was subsequently signed:

Petitioners’ reliance on the continued effect of the terms of the 2008-2009 CBA is unavailing in light of the recent decisions of the Court of Appeals expressly rejecting the application of the Triborough Amendment to the tier 5 retirement legislation … .  Accordingly, the expired 2008-2009 CBA cannot be considered to have been “in effect” on January 9, 2010 for the purpose of permitting the new hires to qualify for the statutory exception (see L 2009, ch 504, Part A, § 8).

Nor are we persuaded that the 2009-2013 CBA can be considered to be retroactively “in effect” on January 9, 2010, as it was not executed until seven months later in August 2010.  At that time, newly hired firefighters were required by law to contribute to the retirement system (see Retirement and Social Security Law §§ 1201, 1204) and, as a result, the Union and NFTA [Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority] were prohibited from agreeing to a noncontributory retirement plan (see Civil Service Law § 201 [4]; Retirement and Social Security Law § 470).  Moreover, while the Union and NFTA were able to retroactively bind each other to the terms of the 2009-2013 CBA, they were unable to bind third parties such as the Comptroller … . Matter of Buffalo Niagara Airport Firefighters Association v DiNapoli, 515811, 3rd Dept 11-7-13

 

, , , , ,

“At Will” Clause in Employment Contract Precluded Action Based Upon Promissory Estoppel, Fraud and Negligent Representation/Criteria for Tortious Interference With Contract and Prima Facie Tort Not Met

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of a complaint brought by a doctor against the hospital where he was employed and the doctor who supervised him.  The plaintiff was hired pursuant to an agreement which included an “at will” clause allowing termination without cause upon 60 days notice. Plaintiff was terminated upon 90 days notice. Plaintiff sued the hospital for promissory estoppel, fraud, and negligent representation.  Plaintiff sued his supervisor [Hussain] for tortious interference with contract and prima facie tort:

Plaintiff’s claims against the hospital all required a showing that, among other things, he reasonably relied on any alleged promises or misrepresentations made to him by the hospital … .  In this regard, we note that “[w]here, as here, ‘a plaintiff is offered only at-will employment, he or she will generally be unable to establish reasonable reliance on a prospective employer’s representations'” … . * * * Inasmuch as any oral assurances made by the hospital as to the security of plaintiff’s position could not have altered the at-will nature of the employment contract, the hospital established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the claims against it, shifting the burden to plaintiff “‘to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action’”… . * * *

… [A] claim of tortious interference with contract requires (1) the existence of a valid contract between a plaintiff and a third party, (2) a defendant’s knowledge of such contract, (3) the intentional inducement of a breach of that contract, and (4) damages … .  Significantly, as the contract here was terminable at will, plaintiff was also required to “show that [Hussain] employed wrongful means, such as fraud, misrepresentation or threats[,] to effect the termination of employment”… .No such showing was made here. * * *

“[Prima facie tort] requires a showing of an intentional infliction of harm, without excuse or justification, by an act or series of acts that would otherwise be lawful . . . and that malevolence was the sole motivating factor” … .  Considering plaintiff’s acknowledgment that Hussain prevented him from examining patients as a result of complaints made by patients who wanted to be treated by Hussain and not plaintiff, plaintiff could not establishthat Hussain’s actions were motivated solely by “disinterested malevolence”… . Hobler v Hussain…, 516381, 3rd Dept 11-7-13

 

,

Material Breach and Abandonment of Subcontract Waived Notice of Termination and Opportunity to Cure and Warranted Cost-to-Complete Damages

The First Department explained the criteria for cost-to-complete damages for a subcontractor’s breach before completion of performance.  The court noted that plaintiff was not entitled to overpayment damages in addition to the cost-to-complete damages because receipt of both would amount to a double recovery:

Defendants are entitled to cost-to-complete damages because plaintiff materially breached and abandoned the subcontract, and waived any right to notice of termination or an opportunity to cure. The subcontract explicitly provides that time is of the essence, that plaintiff’s delay or failure to meet scheduling requirements warrants termination, and that plaintiff must perform work even if the parties dispute that work’s characterization, yet plaintiff repeatedly failed to timely perform and complete work, despite defendant E-J Electric Installation Co.’s repeated demands … . Among other material breaches, plaintiff repudiated the subcontract by abandoning the work site when only 73.49% of plaintiff’s work was complete … . Accordingly, plaintiff waived any right to notice of termination … .

It is well-settled that if a subcontractor breaches before completing performance, the contractor is entitled to recover reliance, or cost-to-complete damages from the subcontractor… . Kleinberg Elec Inc v E-J Elec Installation Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 07256, 1st Dept 11-7-13

 

, ,

School Employee Stated Discrimination Cause of Action City Department of Education

The Court of Appeals affirmed the appellate division and found plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence of employment discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss:

Defendants are of course correct that evidence only that the principal made stray discriminatory comments without any basis for inferring a connection to the termination would be insufficient to defeat defendants’ motion (see Forrest, 3 NY3d at 308 [comments made years before the plaintiff’s termination failed to raise a triable issue of fact in light of the clear evidence of plaintiff’s misconduct]).  But that is not the case here.  Plaintiff has offered evidence of, among other things: defendant principal’s repeated homophobic remarks directed at plaintiff; his decision to report to the Department of Education (DOE) allegations that plaintiff had engaged in misconduct while working at an after-school program that he did not supervise; his close relationship with the alleged victims of the misconduct; his independent decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment; and the after-school program supervisor’s opinion that plaintiff had not engaged in any misconduct worthy of reporting to the DOE. This is sufficient to deny defendants’ motion for summary dismissal.  Sandiford v City of New York Dept of Education, 157, CtApp 10-17-15

 

,

Employment Discrimination Claim Stated Under the NYC Human Rights Law But Not Under the State Human Rights Law

Over a partial dissent, the Court of Appeals determined that plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim under the state Human Rights Law (HRL) was properly dismissed but that the claim under the city HRL should not have been dismissed.  The city, unlike the state, places the burden on the employer to show that it could not provide reasonable accommodations to allow a disabled employee to work.  The employee essentially asked for an indefinite leave from work based upon severe depression:

In the context of employment discrimination, the term “disability” as defined in the State HRL is “limited to disabilities which, upon the provision of reasonable accommodations, do not prevent the complainant from performing in a reasonable manner the activities involved in the job or occupation sought or held” (Executive Law § 292 [21]).  A “reasonable accommodation” means actions taken which permit an employee with a disability to perform in a reasonable manner activities involved in the job, and “do not impose an undue hardship on the business” (Executive Law § 292 [21-e]).  To state a claim under the State HRL, the complaint and supporting documentation must set forth factual allegations sufficient to show that, “upon the provision of reasonable accommodations, [the employee] could perform the essential functions of [his or] her job” … .  Indefinite leave is not considered a reasonable accommodation under the State HRL … .

Here, neither plaintiff’s communications with his employer just prior to his termination nor the complaint filed one year later offer any indication as to when plaintiff planned to return to work.  Instead, plaintiff informed his employer that he had not expressed any intention to “abandon” his job and that his return to work date was “indeterminate”; the complaint merely alleges that plaintiff sought “a continued leave of absence to allow him to recover and return to work.”  “Indeterminate” means “not definitely or precisely determined or fixed” … .  * * *

The City HRL, on the other hand, affords protections broader than the State HRL  * * *.

Unlike the State HRL, the City HRL’s definition of “disability” does not include “reasonable accommodation” or the ability to perform a job in a reasonable manner.  Rather, the City HRL defines “disability” solely in terms of impairments (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8–102 [16]).  The City HRL requires that an employer “make reasonable accommodation to enable a person with a disability to satisfy the essential requisites of a job . . . provided that the disability is known or should have been known by the [employer]” (id. at § 8–107 [15] [a]).  Contrary to the State HRL, it is the employer’s burden to prove undue hardship … .  And, the City HRL provides employers an affirmative defense if the employee cannot, with reasonable accommodation, “satisfy the essential requisites of the job” (Administrative Code 8-107 [15] [b]). Thus, the employer, not the employee, has the “pleading obligation” to prove that the employee “could not, with reasonable accommodation, satisfy the essential requisites of the job” … .  Romanello v Intesa Sanpaolo …, 152, CtApp 10-10-13

 

, , ,

Stay of Arbitration Properly Denied, Collective Bargaining Agreement Allowed Issue to Be Determined in Arbitration

In affirming Supreme Court’s dismissal of an Article 75 petition seeking a permanent stay of arbitration (with respect to a collective bargaining agreement [CBA]), the Fourth Department explained the operative analysis:

In determining whether an issue is subject to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), a court must apply the two-step analysis set forth in Matter of Acting Supt. of Schs. of Liverpool Cent. Sch. Dist. (United Liverpool Faculty Assn.) (42 NY2d 509, 513).  “First, a court must determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance” … .  If the court determines that there is no such prohibition and thus that the parties have the authority to arbitrate the grievance, it proceeds to the second step, in which it must determine whether that authority was in fact exercised, i.e., whether the CBA demonstrates that the parties agreed to refer this type of dispute to arbitration … .  With respect to the second step, where there is a broad arbitration clause such as the one in the CBA at issue, “[a] determination of arbitrability is limited to ‘whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA’ ” … .  “Succinctly, the test centers on two distinct inquiries as to the public parties’ purported entry into the arbitral forum:  may they do so and, if yes, did they do so” … .  Here, with respect to the issue whether petitioner properly followed the procedures mandated by the CBA in terminating the employee in question, we conclude that the court properly determined that the parties had the authority to agree to arbitrate this grievance, and that they in fact agreed to do so.  Matter of Arbitration…, 1019, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

, ,

No Negligence In School District’s, School’s and Attending Nurse’s Care of Child Who Died After Suffering an Allergic Reaction in School

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Eng, the Second Department determined the action brought on behalf of a child who died in school after suffering an allergic reaction was correctly dismissed with respect to the Department of Education (DOE) and should have been dismissed with respect to the school and the attending nurse who was tasked with monitoring the child at school.  The lengthy opinion deals in depth with many topics including:  the DOE’s duty, the school’s duty, the nurse’s duty, the finding that the nurse was an independent contractor as opposed to an employee, and the proximate cause issue raised by the inability to determine what caused the allergic reaction.  The child was autistic and suffered from asthma and numerous severe allergies.  The DOE developed a plan (Individualized Education Program) which involved placement of the child in a private school equipped to care for children with special needs and the provision of a nurse who was with the child continuously during the school day.  The Second Department treated all the issues (including the adequacy of the medical care provided by the nurse) exhaustively and determined no questions of fact had been raised about the negligence of any of the defendants. Begley v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05867, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

, ,

Reinstatement of Charge Against Teacher After Dismissal of Charge in Arbitration Proper; Interlocutory Ruling by Arbitrator was “Final” in Effect/Courts Can Impose Higher Level of Scrutiny when Arbitration Mandated by Statute

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s reinstatement of a charge against a teacher (Hogan) which had been dismissed by the arbitrator. The Second Department explained the criteria for court review of an interlocutory ruling of an arbitrator, noting that more scrutiny is appropriate in an arbitration mandated by statute:

Initially, we reject Hogan’s contention that the petition should have been dismissed because courts do not have the authority to review an interlocutory award dismissing one of the charges in an arbitration proceeding brought pursuant to Education Law 3020-a. As a general rule, a court lacks authority to entertain a petition to review an interlocutory ruling of an arbitrator on a procedural matter … . Here, however, the award sought to be reviewed is not one which involves “only a very limited procedural question” … . Rather, the award dismissed the most serious disciplinary charge preferred against Hogan, and the only one of the three charges which alleged that he was guilty of misconduct. The award is final as to that charge, and, if allowed to stand, would prevent the District from adducing evidence in support of the alleged misconduct at the hearing. Under these circumstances, the award dismissing Charge No. 1 can be viewed as a final determination subject to review under CPLR 7511 … .

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly granted the District’s petition and reinstated Charge No. 1 against Hogan. Where, as here, the obligation to arbitrate arises through statutory mandate (see Education Law § 3020-a), the arbitrator’s determination is subject to closer judicial scrutiny than it would receive had the arbitration been conducted voluntarily … . The award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Board of Educ of Hauppauge Union Free Sch Dist v Hogan, 2013 NY Slip Op 05816, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

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