Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Adam Schulze, a retired firefighter from the City of Newburgh, was injured on the job in 2012 and classified as permanently partially disabled in 2015. He received full salary payments from the City under General Municipal Law § 207-a (1) and workers' compensation benefits until December 2015. In 2016, Schulze was approved for performance of duty (POD) retirement, entitling him to a 50% pension and supplemental payments from the City under General Municipal Law § 207-a (2).A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded Schulze workers' compensation payments for periods before and after his retirement. The City sought reimbursement from these payments for its prior payments under General Municipal Law § 207-a (1) and (2). The WCLJ granted reimbursement for the period before Schulze's retirement but denied it for the period after. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision, and the Appellate Division affirmed, citing Matter of Harzinski v Village of Endicott, which held that General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments are not "wages" under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 25 (4) (a) and 30 (2).The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that neither Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a) nor § 30 (2) entitles the City to reimbursement from workers' compensation awards for payments made under General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). The court emphasized that General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments are pension supplements, not wages, and that the statutory scheme requires the City to reduce its payments by the amount of workers' compensation benefits, not to seek direct reimbursement. The court concluded that the City is not entitled to reimbursement directly from Schulze's workers' compensation award for its prior payments. View "Matter of Schulze v City of Newburgh Fire Dept." on Justia Law

The petitioner, owner of an apartment building in Manhattan, filed an application with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) in 2019 to amend its 2016 and 2017 annual registration statements. The petitioner claimed that the registrations erroneously stated that unit 1B was temporarily exempt from rent stabilization due to owner/employee occupancy, while it should have been permanently exempt due to a high rent vacancy in 2002. The petitioner sought to withdraw the erroneous registrations and submit new ones removing unit 1B from the total of rent-stabilized units.The Rent Administrator denied the application, stating that registration amendments could only correct ministerial issues, not substantive changes like recalculating rental history or removing an apartment from rent-stabilized status. The Deputy Commissioner of DHCR upheld this decision, agreeing that the requested amendments went beyond the scope of an amendment application proceeding. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul DHCR's determination.The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, reasoning that DHCR rationally determined the requested correction was substantive rather than ministerial. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, noting that DHCR's interpretation of the Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) as precluding the requested amendments was rational and reasonable.The Court of Appeals of New York reviewed the case and held that DHCR's interpretation of the RSC, which limits amendments to ministerial issues, was entitled to substantial deference. The court found that DHCR's decision to deny the petitioner's application was rational, as it aimed to protect tenants from fraud, preserve agency resources, and ensure rent stabilization disputes were litigated in the proper forum. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed, with costs. View "Matter of LL 410 E. 78th St. LLC v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal" on Justia Law

NYP Holdings, Inc. and a New York Post reporter submitted 144 Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests to the New York Police Department (NYPD) for disciplinary records related to specific police officers. The NYPD denied the requests for all but one officer, leading the Post to commence an article 78 proceeding to compel disclosure. The Police Benevolent Association (PBA) intervened, arguing that records created before the repeal of Civil Rights Law § 50-a were not subject to disclosure under FOIL.The Supreme Court granted the Post's petition, rejecting the NYPD's claim that compliance would be too burdensome and refusing to consider the PBA's retroactivity argument. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the repeal of section 50-a applied retroactively to records created before the repeal. The court emphasized that the repeal was remedial legislation intended to increase public trust and accountability in law enforcement.The Court of Appeals reviewed the case, focusing on whether law enforcement disciplinary records created while section 50-a was in effect could be disclosed in response to FOIL requests submitted after the repeal. The court concluded that the Legislature intended for the repeal to have retroactive effect, noting that FOIL's presumption of disclosure applies to all records held by an agency, regardless of when they were created. The court also highlighted the legislative intent to enhance public trust and accountability following the repeal of section 50-a.The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, holding that the repeal of section 50-a applies retroactively, allowing the disclosure of law enforcement disciplinary records created before the repeal. View "Matter of NYP Holdings, Inc. v New York City Police Dept." on Justia Law

In 2020, the New York legislature repealed Civil Rights Law § 50-a, which had exempted law enforcement disciplinary records from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) subsequently requested records of all civilian complaints against Rochester police officers from the City of Rochester and the Rochester Police Department, regardless of whether the complaints were substantiated. When the respondents did not promptly produce the documents, NYCLU initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel disclosure.The Supreme Court ordered the production of many records but allowed the respondents to withhold records related to unsubstantiated complaints under the personal privacy exemption in Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b). The Appellate Division modified this decision, ruling that the personal privacy exemption did not permit categorical withholding of all such records. Instead, the respondents were directed to review each record individually to determine if there was a specific justification for redaction or withholding based on personal privacy grounds.The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that FOIL's personal privacy exemption does not allow for a blanket exemption of all records related to unsubstantiated complaints against law enforcement officers. Each record must be evaluated individually to determine if disclosing it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. If redactions can prevent such an invasion, the agency must disclose the record with the necessary redactions. The court emphasized that the 2020 amendments to FOIL aimed to increase transparency in the law enforcement disciplinary process, and categorical exemptions would undermine this objective. View "Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v City of Rochester" on Justia Law

A property owner sought to deregulate certain Manhattan apartments under the luxury deregulation provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) issued deregulation orders for these apartments, but the leases did not expire until after the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) repealed luxury deregulation. The property owner argued that the apartments should still be deregulated despite the repeal.The Supreme Court dismissed the property owner's proceeding, holding that DHCR's interpretation of the HSTPA was reasonable. The court found that the apartments did not become deregulated because their leases had not expired before the HSTPA took effect. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, agreeing that DHCR's interpretation was correct and that there was no improper delay by DHCR in processing the deregulation applications.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that DHCR properly interpreted the HSTPA as eliminating luxury deregulation for apartments whose leases expired after the statute's effective date. The court found that the statutory language and legislative intent supported DHCR's interpretation. Additionally, the court rejected the property owner's argument that DHCR caused undue delay in processing the deregulation applications, finding no evidence of negligence or willfulness by DHCR. The court concluded that the apartments remained subject to rent stabilization under the HSTPA. View "Matter of 160 E. 84th St. Assoc. LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal" on Justia Law

The case involves the interpretation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 12-126, which mandates that New York City pay the full cost of health insurance coverage for active employees, retirees, and their dependents, up to a specified cap. The dispute centers on whether the City is required to pay up to the statutory cap for any health insurance plan it offers or just one plan. Petitioners argue that the City must pay for any plan offered, while the City contends it only needs to pay for one plan and any additional plans are subject to collective bargaining agreements.The Supreme Court of New York County granted a preliminary injunction preventing the City from enforcing an opt-out date for a new Medicare Advantage plan and later permanently enjoined the City from passing any costs of the current plan to retirees, except where costs exceed the statutory cap. The court did not determine the exact statutory cap but suggested that the cost of the Senior Care plan did not exceed it. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, agreeing that the City must pay the full cost, up to the statutory cap, for any health insurance plan it offers to retirees.The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that § 12-126 requires the City to pay up to the statutory cap for each health insurance plan it offers to employees and retirees. The court did not address the issue of how the statutory cap should be determined for Medicare-eligible retirees, as the City had not preserved this question for review. The court concluded that the legislative history supported the interpretation that the City must pay for any plan it offers, aligning with the intent to provide a choice of health insurance plans to employees and retirees. View "Matter of NYC Org. of Pub. Serv. Retirees, Inc. v Campion" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured when he lost control of his motorcycle on Lark Street in Albany, allegedly due to a road defect the City knew about but failed to repair. The case centers on whether reports submitted through the City's online system, SeeClickFix (SCF), constituted "written notice" of the defect and if those reports were "actually given" to the designated official.The Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, holding that SCF reports might constitute prior written notice but that factual issues precluded summary judgment. These issues included whether the complaints were based on verbal or written communications, whether the defects described were related to the accident, and whether the City's actions created or exacerbated the defect. The court also rejected the City's claim of governmental immunity.The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, agreeing that SCF complaints could be considered written notice and rejecting the City's immunity argument. The Appellate Division granted the City leave to appeal and certified the question of whether it erred in affirming the denial of the City's motion.The New York Court of Appeals held that SCF reports could constitute written notice and that the City's implementation of SCF meant the reports were "actually given" to the Commissioner of General Services. The court also found that issues of fact precluded summary judgment on whether the City's negligence created a dangerous condition and rejected the City's claim of governmental immunity, as the repair of the road was a proprietary function. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order and answered the certified question in the negative. View "Calabrese v City of Albany" on Justia Law

A former police officer, the petitioner, sought to annul the Comptroller's decision denying him accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits. The petitioner was injured while on desk duty when his rolling chair tipped due to a rut in the floor, causing him to grab his desk and injure his shoulder and neck. He applied for ADR benefits, claiming the injury was accidental.The Comptroller denied the application, concluding that the petitioner could have reasonably anticipated the hazard. The petitioner testified that he was aware of the ruts in the floor and had been working desk duty for months. Photographs documented the floor's condition. The Comptroller determined that the injury was not the result of an "accident" as defined for ADR benefits.The petitioner challenged this decision through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Appellate Division confirmed the Comptroller's determination and dismissed the proceeding, stating that an event is not an accident if it could have been reasonably anticipated. One Justice dissented, arguing that the "reasonably anticipated" standard was inconsistent with precedent and that the chair tipping was a sudden, unexpected event.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment. The court held that a precipitating event that could or should have been reasonably anticipated by a person in the claimant's circumstances is not an "accident" for ADR benefits. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Comptroller's determination that the petitioner could have reasonably anticipated the near-fall from his desk chair, given his familiarity with the ruts in the floor and the documented condition of the precinct floor. The judgment was affirmed with costs. View "Bodenmiller v. DiNapoli" on Justia Law

In June 2019, the petitioner's 13-year-old daughter, T., disclosed to a friend, a teacher, a police officer, and a caseworker from the New York City Administration for Children's Services (ACS) that the petitioner had struck her with an extension cord. The caseworker took photographs of T.'s injuries, and a physician confirmed that the injuries were consistent with being struck by an extension cord. ACS initiated a Family Court article 10 neglect proceeding against the petitioner and her husband. The Family Court authorized an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD), and the case was dismissed in February 2020 after the petitioner complied with the court's conditions.The police officer reported the incident to the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (SCR). In July 2019, ACS determined the report against the petitioner was indicated. The petitioner challenged this determination, but the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) upheld it after an internal review. A fair hearing was held in August 2020, and OCFS concluded that the allegations were substantiated by a fair preponderance of the evidence.The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge OCFS's determination. The Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division, which confirmed OCFS's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding. The Appellate Division held that the petitioner had no constitutional right to assigned counsel during the SCR hearing and that the statutory changes to Social Services Law § 422 did not apply retroactively.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court held that the petitioner had no constitutional right to assigned counsel during the SCR administrative hearing. It also concluded that the statutory amendments to Social Services Law § 422 (8) (b) (ii) did not apply retroactively to OCFS determinations rendered before the effective date of the amendments. The Court further held that OCFS's determination was supported by substantial evidence. View "Matter of Jeter v. Poole" on Justia Law

On February 9, 2017, a bus owned and operated by New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) allegedly struck and injured Jeffrey Colt in Manhattan. Colt and his wife, Betsy Tsai, filed a lawsuit on September 18, 2017, claiming negligence, negligent hiring, and loss of consortium. NJT and its employee, Ana Hernandez, who was driving the bus, denied many of the allegations and asserted various defenses, including a lack of jurisdiction and immunity from suit. In 2020, NJT moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was protected by sovereign immunity as an arm of the State of New Jersey.The Supreme Court of New York County denied NJT's motion, ruling that NJT had waived its right to assert sovereign immunity by waiting three years to raise the defense. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision but on different grounds, concluding that NJT was an arm of the State of New Jersey and entitled to sovereign immunity. However, it held that dismissing the case would be unjust since the plaintiffs could not sue in New Jersey due to venue rules.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division's order but on different grounds. The Court of Appeals held that NJT is not entitled to invoke sovereign immunity in New York courts. The court considered factors such as how New Jersey defines NJT and its functions, the state's power to direct NJT's conduct, and the effect of a judgment against NJT on the state's dignity. The court concluded that allowing the suit to proceed would not offend New Jersey's sovereign dignity because NJT operates with significant independence and New Jersey would not be liable for a judgment against NJT. Therefore, NJT and the other defendants could not claim sovereign immunity. View "Colt v. New Jersey Tr. Corp." on Justia Law