You are here: / Municipal Law
, , ,

COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined the county could not be held liable for flooding by a brook which overflowed its banks. There was not special relationship between the county and the plaintiff:

“[A] municipal corporation is not liable for failure to restrain waters between banks of a stream or to keep a channel free from obstructions it did not cause. Absent any special duty owed to the private landowners, a municipal corporation cannot be held liable for failing to provide adequate flood protection” … . Here, the County demonstrated that it did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff, and that the overflow was caused by natural phenomena, rather than its conduct. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Kimball Brooklands Corp. v County of Westchester, 2016 NY Slip Op 07297, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/IMMUNITY (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/NEGLIGENCE (FLOODING, COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (FLOODING, COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF)/FLOODING (COUNTY NOT LIABLE FOR FLOODING, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF

, ,

STATUTE CUTTING OFF COUNTIES’ ABILITY TO SEEK MEDICAID OVERBURDEN EXPENSES IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined Section 61 of the Executive Budget Law, which cut-off counties’ ability to seek Medicaid “overburden expenses” as of January 1, 2006, is constitutional. The State Executive Budget Memorandum explained that the purpose of Section 61 was to “to clarify that local governments cannot claim for overburden expenses incurred prior to January 1, 2006 when the ‘local cap’ statute that limited local contributions to Medicaid expenditures took effect. This is necessary to address adverse court decisions that have resulted in State costs paid to local districts for pre-cap periods, which conflict with the original intent of the local cap statute:”

Once the State complied with its statutory obligation under Social Services Law § 368-a (1) (h) (i) to pay the counties for overburden reimbursements, it was fully consistent with the prior mandatory reimbursement scheme for the Legislature to impose a deadline on claims for unpaid funds. That deadline was neither in conflict with a fundamental law nor our constitutional principles. Just as the Counties cannot be heard to complain that the Legislature replaced one Medicaid allocation scheme with another, thus redefining the counties’ expense burden, so too are the counties without recourse when the Legislature imposes a deadline on the counties’ submission of claims for overburden reimbursements, thereby closing the door on pre-2006 claims. Matter of County of Chemung v Shah, 2016 NY Slip Op 07043, CtApp 10-27-16

 

MEDICAID (STATUTE CUTTING OFF COUNTIES’ ABILITY TO SEEK MEDICAID OVERBURDEN EXPENSES IS CONSTITUTIONAL)/MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTIES, MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT, STATUTE CUTTING OFF COUNTIES’ ABILITY TO SEEK MEDICAID OVERBURDEN EXPENSES IS CONSTITUTIONAL)/COUNTIES (MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT, STATUTE CUTTING OFF COUNTIES’ ABILITY TO SEEK MEDICAID OVERBURDEN EXPENSES IS CONSTITUTIONAL)

, ,

PLAINTIFF SUING SHERIFF FOR FAILURE TO KEEP HIM SAFE FROM ASSAULT IN JAIL (1) DID NOT NEED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND (2) STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, concerning a lawsuit alleging the Erie County Sheriff was negligent in failing to protect plaintiff from sexual assault while in jail, determined: (1) plaintiff did not need to file a notice of claim because the county can not, under the NYS Constitution, indemnify and defend the sheriff in connection with the action; (2) the complaint stated a cause of action in negligence (failure to keep an inmate safe); and (3) governmental immunity is an affirmative defense on which the sheriff bears the burden of proof which cannot be addressed at the pleading stage. The fact that the county provided law enforcement liability insurance for the sheriff did not trigger the notice of claim requirement under the Municipal Law:

… [T]hat the County agreed to provide “Liability Insurance” for the Sheriff in exchange for consideration because “policies of law enforcement liability insurance paid for by the County” had become prohibitively expensive. In resolving to act as an insurer, the County recognized — as was commonly understood at the time — that it could not statutorily obligate itself to defend and indemnify the Sheriff, as it had agreed to do for the Sheriff’s employees, under the New York State Constitution … . Absent the existence of any statutory obligation on the County to indemnify the Sheriff — as opposed to an agreement to act as his insurer — the Appellate Division correctly ruled that service of a notice of claim was not required under General Municipal Law § 50-e. …

While the State is by no means an insurer of inmate safety or required to provide unremitting surveillance in all circumstances … , we explained in Sanchez [99 NY2d 247] that, “[h]aving assumed physical custody of inmates, who cannot protect and defend themselves in the same way as those at liberty can, the State owes a duty of care to safeguard inmates, even from attacks by fellow inmates” … . Inasmuch as “the Sheriff is [similarly] prescribed, by law, to safely keep inmates of the County Jail” … , the rule set forth in Sanchez applies equally here. Villar v Howard, 2016 NY Slip Op 06944, CtApp 10-25-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (PLAINTIFF SUING SHERIFF FOR FAILURE TO KEEP HIM SAFE FROM ASSAULT IN JAIL (1) DID NOT NEED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND (2) STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE)/NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF SUING SHERIFF FOR FAILURE TO KEEP HIM SAFE FROM ASSAULT IN JAIL (1) DID NOT NEED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND (2) STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (PLAINTIFF SUING SHERIFF FOR FAILURE TO KEEP HIM SAFE FROM ASSAULT IN JAIL (1) DID NOT NEED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND (2) STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE)/SHERIFF (PLAINTIFF SUING SHERIFF FOR FAILURE TO KEEP HIM SAFE FROM ASSAULT IN JAIL (1) DID NOT NEED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND (2) STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE)

NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn too detailed to be summarized here, upheld the validity of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission’s (TLC’s) “Accessibility Rules” which aim to increase the number of hybrid and wheel-chair-accessible taxicabs and livery vehicles:

In keeping with [the] legislative intent, the TLC promulgated sections 51-03, 58-50 and the other aspects of the Accessibility Rules. In those rules, the TLC established a precondition for commencement of the program that encouraged the development of a vehicle that is both compliant with [Administrative Code] § 19-533 [re: hybrid vehicles] and accessible, consistent with its twin statutory mandates of promoting cleaner air and serving disabled passengers. Recognizing that such a vehicle might not be developed, however, the TLC included language in this rule limiting the time period in which this precondition remained in effect to no later than January 1, 2016, 20 months after the Accessibility Rules were promulgated. In doing so, the TLC rationally promulgated rules providing for a reasonable period of time for the development of an accessible hybrid electric vehicle while ensuring that, at minimum, the TLC’s mandate to increase the number of accessible taxicabs would be fulfilled. Matter of Clair v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06768, 1st Dept 10-13-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD)/TAXIS (NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD)/DISABILITIES, PERSONS WITH (NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD)/HYBRID VEHICLES (NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S RULES RE: HYBRID AND WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS AND LIVERY VEHICLES UPHELD)

,

ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE.

The Second Department determined the common law negligence cause of action brought by a police officer against the owner of property abutting the sidewalk where the officer allegedly slipped and fell, was properly dismissed. The applicable village and town codes did not make an abutting landowner liable in tort to someone injured on the sidewalk. However, the police officer’s action under General Municipal Law 205-e properly survived summary judgment. A property owner’s violation of a code provision requiring maintenance of the sidewalk was a proper basis for an action under General Municipal Law 205-e:

… [ t]he Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action, which seeks to recover damages pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e. “A police officer seeking to recover under General Municipal Law § 205-e must identify a statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply and must, in addition, set forth facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant’s negligence directly or indirectly caused harm to him or her” … . As a prerequisite to recovery pursuant to a General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action, a police officer must demonstrate injury resulting from negligent noncompliance with a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear legal duties … .

* * * Section 302.3 of the 2007 Property Maintenance Code of New York State (see 19 NYCRR 1226.1) has been found by this Court to be a proper predicate for recovery under General Municipal Law § 205-e … .

Further, § 181-11 of the Town Code and § 250-27 of the Village Code are well-developed bodies of law that impose clear duties upon every property owner to keep his or her sidewalk in good and safe repair. Lewis v Palazzolo, 2016 NY Slip Op 06686, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)/SLIP AND FALL (POLICE OFFICERS, (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)/SIDEWALKS (POLICE OFFICERS, (ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)/POLICE OFFICERS (SLIP AND FALL, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY TO POLICE OFFICER DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; HOWEVER PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BASED UPON CODE VIOLATIONS RE: SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE)

, ,

DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the doctrine of equitable estoppel should have been applied to deny the NYC Transit Authority’s (NYCTA’s) motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve a notice of claim. The notice of claim had been timely served on the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and a 50-h hearing had been held:

Although the MTA and NYCTA share an affiliation, they are separate entities … . Thus, service of a notice of claim upon the MTA does not satisfy the condition precedent of serving a notice of claim upon the NYCTA … . However, a municipal corporation may be equitably estopped from asserting lack of notice of claim when it has wrongfully or negligently engaged in conduct that misled or discouraged a party from serving a timely notice of claim or making a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and when that conduct was justifiably relied upon by that party … . “By applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel to notice of claim situations, the courts may insure that statutes like section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, do not become a trap to catch the unwary or the ignorant'” … .  Konner v New York City Tr. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 06683, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPLA LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO DENY NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE NOTICE HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED ON THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND A 50-h HEARING HAD BEEN HELD)

,

VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment in favor of the defendant village should not have been granted in this sidewalk slip and fall case.  Although the village demonstrated it did not have written notice of snow and ice on the sidewalk, it did not demonstrate its practice of piling snow did not create the hazard:

While the mere failure to remove all snow or ice from a sidewalk is an act of omission, rather than an affirmative act of negligence … , a municipality’s act in piling snow as part of its snow removal efforts, which snow pile then melts and refreezes to create a dangerous icy condition, constitutes an affirmative act excepting the dangerous condition from the prior written notice requirement … . The defendant’s evidence demonstrated that the temperature rose and remained above freezing for an extended period of time on the day before the plaintiff’s accident, after the defendant created the snow piles. On the day of the plaintiff’s accident, however, the temperature dropped to below freezing. While the defendant submitted an affidavit of an employee who stated that he applied sand and salt to the area of the sidewalk where the plaintiff fell sometime between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the day of plaintiff’s accident, the plaintiff testified at his hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h that there was no sand or salt on the sidewalk at the time of his fall. Evidence submitted by the defendant also indicates that the ice upon which the plaintiff fell was located on a portion of the sidewalk that sloped down from the snow piles. Larenas v Incorporated Vil. of Garden City, 2016 NY Slip Op 06684, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE,VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SIDEWALKS (MUNICIPAL LAW, VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

APPLICATION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED. NO SHOWING OF DEFENDANT’S TIMELY AWARENESS OF THE INJURIES.

The Fourth Department determined claimant’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted. Apparently plaintiff’s daughter was injured by a student from defendant school district who was subject to an order of protection requiring the student to stay away from the school attended by claimant’s daughter. Although claimant demonstrated defendant had timely knowledge of the order of protection but not demonstrate the defendant had timely knowledge of any injuries resulting from the violation of the order:

 

Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting claimant’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) approximately one year after the incident in which her daughter was injured occurred. “It is well settled that key factors for the court to consider in determining an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim are whether the claimant has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or within a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining a defense on the merits” … . “While the presence or absence of any single factor is not determinative, one factor that should be accorded great weight is whether the [municipality] received actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim in a timely manner” … . It is well established that “[k]nowledge of the injuries or damages claimed . .. , rather than mere notice of the underlying occurrence, is necessary to establish actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the meaning of General Municipal Law § 50-e (5)” … , and the claimant has the burden of demonstrating that the respondent had actual timely knowledge … . Matter of Turlington v Brockport Cent. Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 06572, 4th Dept 10-7-16

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (APPLICATION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED. NO SHOWING OF DEFENDANT’S TIMELY AWARENESS OF THE INJURIES)/MUNICIPAL LAW (APPLICATION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED. NO SHOWING OF DEFENDANT’S TIMELY AWARENESS OF THE INJURIES)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (APPLICATION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED. NO SHOWING OF DEFENDANT’S TIMELY AWARENESS OF THE INJURIES)

,

NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXCEEDED ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO MANDATING INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS FOR CERTAIN PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined the New York City Department of Health exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority when it adopted regulations mandating influenza vaccinations for children attending certain child care, pre-kindergarten and kindergarten programs. The regulations allowed programs to opt-out of the vaccination requirement by paying a fine. The opt-out provision was deemed unrelated to public health, and therefore beyond the Department of Health’s regulatory authority:

… [W]e conclude that by adopting the challenged amendments, the Board of Health “cross[ed] the line into legislative territory” … . [T]he Board of Health did not merely balance costs and benefits, but instead improperly made value judgments by creating a regulatory scheme with exceptions not grounded in promoting public health. … [T]he challenged amendments do not prohibit a child who was not vaccinated against the flu from attending child care or school, but provide only that the facility “may” refuse entry to the unvaccinated child … . Instead, the provider or school can, in effect, opt-out of the vaccination requirement and allow an unvaccinated child to attend, upon payment of a monetary fine … .

This opt-out provision stands in stark contrast to section 2164(7)(a) of the State’s Public Health Law, which, logically, forbids children from remaining in school without proof of the immunizations required under that statute. The challenged amendments, on the other hand, allow a child care provider or school to make an economic choice to pay a fine rather than expel a student and lose a year’s worth of tuition. Creating a policy whereby unvaccinated children are allowed to stay in child care or school flies in the face of respondents’ claim that the challenged amendments are meant to promote the public health by reducing transmission of the flu virus. Not surprisingly, respondents are unable to point to any health-related reason supporting the opt-out provision. Garcia v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2016 NY Slip Op 06559, 1st Dept 10-6-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXCEEDED ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO MANDATING INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS FOR CERTAIN PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXCEEDED ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO MANDATING INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS FOR CERTAIN PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS)/INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS (NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXCEEDED ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO MANDATING INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS FOR CERTAIN PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS)

,

CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY OUTREACH WORKER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.

The Third Department determined an outreach worker/field supervisor who, pursuant to a grant, worked for the Niagara Falls Housing Authority was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Prior to being hired, claimant filled out an application and was required to submit a résumé, after which he was interviewed by a panel, which included two officials from the Housing Authority, that determined to hire him … . Upon being hired, claimant was required to attend training … . The rate of pay for claimant, who was required to work 35 hours per week, was not subject to negotiation … , and claimant was required to fill out and submit weekly time sheets that would have to be approved and signed by his supervisor before receiving remuneration from the Housing Authority … . While claimant did not receive benefits, he was reimbursed for expenses related to the costs of a cell phone, gas, tolls, food and office supplies … , and the Housing Authority also provided claimant with office space to use in one of its buildings. While performing his duties as an outreach worker, claimant was required to wear a jacket or shirt, as well as a hat, identifying him as part of the SNUG [violence reduction] program … and was required to maintain a certain number of clients and to meet with those clients. Claimant was also not allowed to subcontract his work or employ a substitute to perform his work … , and his work in the community was reviewed periodically and subject to oversight by his supervisors … . Matter of Cole (Niagara Falls Hous. Auth.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 06281, 3rd Dept 9-29-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY OUTREACH WORKER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS)

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