Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

These three cases stemmed from a residency policy that called for employees of the City of Niagara Falls School District hired or promoted after the policy's effective date to reside in the City and maintain residency there during their employment. Here the District's Administrator for Human Resources notified three employees that they were suspected of violating the residency policy. The Board then terminated the employees' employment for failure to comply with the policy. On appeal, the Appellate Court (1) found that the District did not meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the employee had changed her domicile in the first case; (2) found the Board's determination was not arbitrary and capricious in the second case; and (3) determined that the third employee's termination was arbitrary and capricious. The Court of Appeals reversed in the first case, affirmed in the second case, and reversed and remanded in the third case, holding (1) the residency policy and its implementing regulations were clear and unambiguous; (2) the District's notice-and-hearing procedures easily complied with due process; and (3) in the majority of these cases, the Board's determinations were not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. View "Beck-Nichols v. Bianco" on Justia Law

Each of these consolidated appeals involved a police officer who responded to provide assistance at the World Trade Center following the September 11, 2001 attacks. Two officers sought accidental disability retirement benefits (Bitchatchi and Macri), and the surviving spouse of another officer made a claim for line-of-duty death benefits (Maldonado). The primary issue was whether the pension fund Respondents produced competent evidence to rebut the statutory World Trade Center (WTC) presumption accorded to Petitioners' claims. The WTC presumption states that an officer's disability or death as a result of a qualifying condition is presumed to be caused by his or her exposure at the WTC site for purposes of benefit upgrades. The Supreme Court held that Respondents in these cases did not meet their burden of disproving that the officers' disabilities or death were causally related to their work at the WTC and related sites, thus affirming in Bitchatchi and Macri and reversing in Maldonado. View "Bitchatchi v. N.Y. City Police Dep't Pension Fund Bd. of Trs." on Justia Law

Defendants were two owners of an apartment in a condominium (the Tomchinskys) and a company the Tomchinskys hired to renovate their unit (Company). Additional defendants were the condominium, its board of managers, and the Trump Corporation (collectively, the condominium defendants). Plaintiff, an employee of Company, was allegedly injured while working in the Tomchinskys' apartment. Plaintiff sued Defendants, claiming common-law negligence and violations of N.Y. Labor Law. Several parties moved for summary judgment, including Plaintiff, who cross-moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action alleging a violation of N.Y. Labor Law 241 (6). Supreme Court denied the motions and cross motions for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed in part, granting the condominium defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against them. Plaintiff appealed the denial of his cross motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Appellate Division did not err in affirming Supreme Court's denial of Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under the Labor Law. View "Guryev v. Tomchinsky" on Justia Law

A town and county squabbled in and out of court for five years over whether the county's department of human resources was required to provide the town with documentation of an employee's fitness to resume work before the town reinstated him to his position under N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law 71. On the employee's second visit to the appellate division, the court concluded that section 71 did not require the department to provide the town with medical certification or an underlying medical report. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that when a civil service commission or department directs a municipal employer to reinstate an employee pursuant to a medical officer's determination of fitness under section 71, the municipal employer must immediately reinstate the employee, and a challenge to such a determination must take the form of a N.Y. C.P.L.R. 78 proceeding. View "Lazzari v. Town of Eastchester" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Court of Appeals considered whether a written letter from the assistant commissioner of the fire department of the city of New York to Petitioner firefighter advising him that he violated the department's code of conduct and equal employment (EEO) policy may be made part of Petitioner's permanent EEO file without affording him an opportunity for a hearing. The supreme court annulled the department's determination that Petitioner made racially offensive remarks and expunged the letter from Petitioner's EEO file. The appellate division affirmed, concluding that the department did not comport with the requirements of due process. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the department denied Petitioner his right to due process by placing the letter in his file without conducting a hearing, and thus the letter was properly expunged from Petitioner's permanent EEO file. View "D'Angelo v. Scoppetta" on Justia Law

The New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (NYC OTB) was a public benefit corporation charged with operating an off-track pari-mutuel betting system within the City. Later, NYC OTB filed for bankruptcy and shut down. The City's Corporation Counsel then announced that NYC OTB retirees would lose coverage under the City's health insurance and welfare benefit plans because the Corporation was no longer able to reimburse the City. A union representing NYC OTB employees and retirees and others (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought suit against the State and City, seeking a judgment declaring that the failure of the State and City to fund, and the termination of retiree health insurance and supplemental benefits, violated the City Administrative Code and other express and implied obligations. Supreme Court rejected the four theories advanced by Plaintiffs to support State or City liability for NYC OTB retiree health benefits. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim against the City; and (2) because NYC OTB had a legal identity separate from the State, Plaintiffs stated no viable theory under which the State could be held liable in this case. View "Roberts v. Paterson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an employee of the New York City Fire Department, applied for and received workers' compensation benefits from the city. Plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against the city and its Parks and Recreation Department, alleging both common law negligence and a cause of action under General Municipal Law 205-a. The city moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, arguing that plaintiff's receipt of workers' compensation benefits barred his lawsuit. The court concluded that it was not the intent of the Legislature to allow recipients of workers' compensation benefits to sue their employers in tort under section 205-a. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Weiner v City of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a 15% partner in defendant Peconic Partners (hedge fund), as well as Chief Compliance Officer. Plaintiff alleged that he was subsequently fired after a dispute with Peconic Partners' CEO and President (Defendant Harnisch). The gist of plaintiff's claim was that the legal and ethical duties of a securities firm and its compliance officer justified recognizing a cause of action for damages when the compliance officer was fired for objecting to misconduct. The court held in Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp that New York common law did not recognize a cause of action for the wrongful discharge of an at-will employee. Therefore, the court declined in this case to make an exception to that rule for the compliance of a hedge fund. View "Sullivan v Harnisch" on Justia Law

This case arose when a real estate developer hired HOD to act as general contractor for the construction of two multi-family residences. HOD entered into a subcontract with Well Built for the masonry work. At issue was whether a general contractor acted as a joint employer of masonry workers, who were employed by one of its subcontractors, thereby owing unpaid wages to the subcontractor's workforce. The court held that the Board erred as a matter of law in relying on the federal six-factor test in Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., Inc. in reaching its determination of joint employment. Because the Board's factual findings indicated nothing more than that the usual contractor/subcontractor relationship existed between HOD and Well Built during the three-month period that Well Built's principal, Martin Bruten, was on the job, the court need not resort to federal precedent to resolve the issue. In any event, even if the court were to apply the Zheng test, the court would hold that HOD was not a joint employer of Well Built's employees. Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the matter remitted with directions to remand to the Board for further proceedings. View "Matter of Ovadia v Office of the Indus. Bd. of Appeals" on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff worked as a collision shop technician and suffered several injuries on the job. Workers' Compensation Law 15(6) provided that compensation for any disability, partial or total, shall not exceed a fixed maximum per week. At issue was whether the application of the cap when an employee has received several awards for different injuries, at least one of which was a so-called "schedule loss of use" award being paid periodically pursuant to the pre-2009 version of Workers' Compensation Law 25. The court held that in such cases an employee's total weekly payment could not exceed the cap. The schedule award was not nullified by the other awards, but must be deferred until the time comes when the cap would not be exceeded. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted with directions to remand to the Board for further proceedings. View "Matter of Schmidt v Falls Dodge, Inc." on Justia Law