You are here: / Employment Law
,

Termination of Deputy Sheriff by Sheriff after Hearing Officer Recommended Suspension Upheld

In up holding the termination of petitioner, a deputy sheriff correction officer, after a disciplinary hearing officer recommended only suspension, the Third Department wrote:

Here, petitioner was found to have caused an injury to a defenseless, handcuffed inmate over whose custody petitioner was in charge. The Sheriff noted that his decision to terminate petitioner’s employment was based, in large measure, upon the fact that, as a correction officer, petitioner was required to handle the most difficult and sometimes dangerous individuals and that “[d]isrespect and brutality of prisoners cannot and will not be tolerated.” Even if there is mitigating evidence that could support a different result –  such  as petitioner’s otherwise unblemished record of service during his 10 years as a correction officer – we may not substitute our judgment for that of the Sheriff ….Considering petitioner’s position as a correction officer and a Sheriff’s Emergency Response Team member and the serious nature of petitioner’s misconduct – an assault of a handcuffed inmate who petitioner was supervising at the time – as well as petitioner’s failure to take responsibility for his actions, the decision to terminate his employment  does not shock our sense of fairness … .  Matter of Knox v VanBlarcum…, 515471, 3rd Dept, 4-11-13

 

 

“Out-of-Title” Work Did Not Warrant Higher Pay

Petitioner was a sergeant at Butler Alcohol and Substance Abuse Correctional Facility and he alleged he was assigned as shift supervisor, requiring him to perform the work of a correction lieutenant.  In upholding a determination that petitioner’s “out-of-title” work did not entitle him to more pay, the Third Department noted:

While Civil Service Law § 61 (2) seemingly provides an “unqualified prohibition against nonemergency out-of-title work,1 case law has made the standard somewhat more flexible based on practicality” ….   “Not all additional duties constitute out-of-title work but, instead, the question is whether the new duties are appropriate to petitioner[‘s] title[] and/or  are similar in nature to, or a reasonable outgrowth of, the duties listed in petitioner[‘s] job specifications” … . “‘[A]n employee’s performance of overlapping functions of an absent supervisor has not been found to establish a violation of Civil Service Law § 61 (2) where such functions were substantially similar to those detailed in his or her job description'” … .  Matter of New York State Correctional Officers … v Governor’s Office of Employee Relations, et al, 515409, 515410, 3rd Dept, 4-11-13

 

 

, ,

Procedure for Testing Adequacy of Causes of Action in Article 78 Petition; Criteria for Bad Faith Abolishment of Position

The Third Department upheld Supreme Court’s determination that the petitioner had stated a cause of action in his Article 78 proceeding for bad faith abolishment of his tenured Assistant Superintendent position.  The Third Department noted that the proper criteria for analysis in this Article 78 proceeding is the same as in a pre-answer motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211:

In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, objections in point of law may be raised either through  a pre-answer motion  to dismiss or – as here – in the verified answer  (see CPLR  7804  [f]). Such objections are appropriately afforded review similar in nature to that applied to defenses raised in a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a).  *  *  *

A school district may abolish a position, even when this results in the discharge of a tenured employee, so long as it “has made a good faith determination based on economic considerations” … . *  *  * We agree with Supreme Court that [petitioner’s] specific and nonconclusory assertions, when deemed to be true for this purpose, were sufficient to allege that the abolition of his position “was motivated by reasons other than a desire to promote institutional efficiency and economy” and thus state a cause of action … .  Matter of Lally v Johnson City School District, 515488, 3rd Dept 4-4-13

 

,

Sexual Harassment Created Hostile Work Environment/Firing Was Impermissible Retaliation 

The Third Department upheld a finding by the New York State Division of Human Rights that petitioner, the owner of a restaurant, had created a hostile work environment and had retaliated against two female employees by firing them after they filed sexual harassment complaints.  Matter of West Taghanic Diner, II, Inc v NYS Division of Human Rights, 514133, 3rd Dept 4-4-13

 

, , ,

Expired Fire Fighters’ Collective Bargaining Agreement Was Not “In Effect” Pursuant to Statute With Respect to Fire Fighters’ Mandated Contributions to Pension Plan

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that a collective bargaining agreement entered into by the City of Yonkers Fire Fighters was not “in effect” within the meaning of Article 22 of the Retirement and Social Security Law.  For some purposes, the Retirement and Social Security Law deems a collective bargaining agreement to remain “in effect” after it has expired, until another agreement is reached.  If the collective bargaining agreement had been deemed to be “in effect” in this case, the firefighters would not have been required to contribute to their pensions, a requirement that was imposed only after the collective bargaining agreement expired.  Matter of City of Yonkers v Yonkers Fire Fighters …, 48, CtApp, 4-2-13

 

, , , ,

Religious Holidays in Teachers’ Collective Bargaining Agreement Violate the Establishment Clause 

A provision in a collective bargaining agreement that allowed teachers to take up to five religious holidays as paid days off was deemed unconstitutional by the Second Department:

“There is no firmer or more settled principle of Establishment Clause jurisprudence than that prohibiting the use of the State’s power to force one to profess a religious belief” … . Here, the clear wording of the religious holidays provision rewarded members of the Association who claimed to be religiously observant with more paid days off than those afforded to agnostics, atheists, and members who were less observant. As a result, the religious holidays provision violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution … .   Matter of Board of Educ … v Mineola Teachers Assn, 2013 NY Slip Op 02070, 2011-11373, Index No 7359/11, 2nd Dept 3-27-13

 

, ,

“Emergency Exception” to Rule Hospital Is Not Vicariously Liable for Negligence of Non-Employee Physicians Did Not Apply

he Second Department determined the hospital’s (Winthrop-University Hospital’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging it was vicariously liable for the actions of a non-employee physician (Raio) should have been granted.  The hospital demonstrated that the “emergency room exception” to vicarious liability for the negligence of a non-employee physician did not apply:

“In general, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of a private attending physician who is not an employee” … . “However, an exception to the general rule exists when a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing” … .

Here, Winthrop-University Hospital made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged that it was vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of Raio by submitting evidence that Raio was not an employee of Winthrop-University Hospital, but rather, an attending physician at the hospital …. Furthermore, Winthrop-University Hospital made a prima facie showing that the emergency room exception was inapplicable, by demonstrating that the decedent was referred to Raio’s care by his own internist … .  Giambona v Hines, et al, 2013, NY Slip Op 01803, 2011-05943, Ind No 7819/07, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13

 

,

Employer’s Failure to Demonstrate a Proper Inquiry Was Made to Determine Whether Reasonable Accommodations Were Possible for a Disabled Employee Precluded Summary Judgment

In affirming the denial of a summary judgment motion brought by the defendant-employer in an employment (disability) discrimination action, the Fourth Department determined the employer did not eliminate all the triable issues of fact concerning whether reasonable accommodation to the employee’s needs was possible:

Assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden of establishing that “plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of the position of a” center manager …, we conclude that there are triable issues of fact “whether, ‘upon the provision of reasonable accommodations, [plaintiff was qualified to hold his position and to] perform [ ] in a reasonable manner’ the essential function of that position” … . [U]nder the broad[ ] protections afforded by the State [Human Rights Law], the first step in providing a reasonable accommodation is to engage in a good faith interactive process that assesses the needs of the disabled individual and the reasonableness of the accommodation requested” … .Thus, “[t]he need for individualized inquiry when making a determination of reasonable accommodation is deeply embedded in the fabric of disability rights law . . . [E]mployers (and courts) must make a clear, fact-specific inquiry about each individual’s circumstance” … .In an employment discrimination case based on allegations of disability discrimination, “summary judgment is not available where there is a genuine dispute as to whether the employer has engaged in a good faith interactive process” … .Here, the court properly determined that defendant failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact with respect to, inter alia, whether defendant engaged in an interactive process to ascertain plaintiff’s needs and whether a reasonable accommodation was possible. Martin v United Parcel Service of America, Inc., 135, CA 12-01377, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

,

Interpretation of Unambiguous Language; Doctrine of Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterious; Criteria for Declaratory Judgment 

In a contract action, the Second Department laid out the black letter law on the interpretation of unambiguous language, the doctrine of “exclusio unius est exclusio alterious,” and the criteria for a declaratory judgment.  The controversy concerned the amount of a bonus which was determined, according to the terms of the contract, by whether the plaintiff resigned or was fired, a disputed issue:

The defendant acknowledges that if the language of a written contract is free of ambiguity, the court must determine its meaning as a matter of law based upon the writing alone, without resort to extrinsic evidence …. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the language of paragraph 4.2 clearly limits bonus compensation to a share of distributions based upon either the sale of all of RDL’s assets, or some of RDL’s assets. Pursuant to the doctrine of “exclusio unius est exclusio alterious,” which means that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other …, the references to the sale of assets implies that bonus compensation does not apply to distributions based upon something other than the sale of assets. If the parties had intended for bonus compensation to be based upon all distributions, these references to the sale of assets would have been unnecessary.  * * * The courts may issue declaratory judgments declaring the rights of the parties only where there is a justiciable controversy …. There is no justiciable controversy warranting declaratory relief if the controversy is over a future event “beyond the control of the parties and may never occur” … . However, in the instant case, the future event is in the control of RDL …, and is likely to occur … . Therefore, the question of whether the defendant was discharged without cause or resigned constitutes a justiciable controversy, which must be resolved by the Supreme Court after a trial.  Realtime Data, LLC v Melone, 2013 NY Slip Op 01540, 2011-11936, Index No 50021/10, 2nd Dept. 3-13-13

 

, ,

Hospital Generally Not Liable for Negligence of Private Attending Physician.

“ ‘[I]n general, a hospital cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a private attending physician’ … . Further, a hospital cannot be held concurrently liable with such a physician unless its employees commit independent acts of negligence or the attending physician’s orders are contraindicated by normal practice…’ “.  Aronov v Soukkary, 2012-00155, Index No 2061/09, Second Dept. 3-6-13

 

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