Decision to make NYPD hair drug testing illegal overturned

Earlier this year, we posted a blog about four former NYPD officers who were suing the Department over terminations after receiving false positives from the highly debated new method of hair drug testing. Click here to read the original blog.

In January 2005, the New York City Police Department announced that it would be using a new methodology for hair testing (radioimmunoassay or RIAH) for all drug screening of uniformed members. Then in August 2005, the NYPD changed its drug-testing method to using hair samples without first obtaining the unions’ consent. The unions protested that this would require collective bargaining prior to making the change. The Supreme Court agreed and ordered the NYPD to bargain with the police unions before implementing the aforementioned changes in drug-testing procedures. The Board of Collective Bargaining ruled that the expansion of the categories subject to testing, from urine to hair analysis, and the change in testing methodology should be subject to collective bargaining.

In January 2007, the City then brought about an Article 78 appeal to annul the Board’s decision arguing that hair testing was the most effective method of drug testing and that the procedures were identical to those already in effect in numerous contexts, as the NYPD already uses RIAH in certain situations. In December 2007, the Supreme Court granted the City’s petition and annulled the Board’s decision. In October 2008, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s judgment and reinstated the Board’s decision. This resulted in yet another Supreme Court appeal.

The Court feels that since the detection and deterrence of wrongdoing within the NYPD, especially illegal drug use, is an integral component of the Police Commissioner’s responsibility to maintain discipline within the force. The Court believes that drug testing methodology and testing triggers are encompassed within the Commissioner’s disciplinary authority and therefore should be excluded from collective bargaining.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Appellate Division, with costs, and reinstated the judgment of Supreme Court.

Read more about this Article 78 NYPD drug testing appeal.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

EBOOK APPEALING CIVIL SERVICE DISQUALIFICATIONS

www.sheerinlaw.com/pdf/sheerinlaw.com-Appealing_a_DQ_eBook.pdf

Click above to download Ebook.

Article 78 revoked driver's license appeal granted

Matter of David Feder v New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

Petitioner brought about this Article 78 proceeding to review a determination of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) which revoked his driver’s license pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law §510.2, imposed a driver’s responsibility fine, and found him ineligible for a restricted use license. The New York State DMV then appealed a decision of the Supreme Court which granted petitioner’s appeal and annulled the DMV’s determination.

Petitioner was issued speeding tickets in August 2005, February 2006, and July 2006. In November 2007, petitioner pleaded guilty to the August 2005 speeding ticket and the following day the DMV revoked his driver’s license for at least 6 months on the grounds that petitioner had been convicted of 3 speeding violations within 18 months. The DMV also informed petitioner that he was ineligible for a restricted use license since he was already issued one within the past 3 years.

When petitioner was convicted of the August 2005 speeding ticket in November 2007, he had not yet been convicted of the other two violations and therefore had not been convicted of 3 speeding violations within an 18 month period. Thus, the DMV’s determination did not have a rational basis and the penalty imposed was an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment granting petitioner’s appeal, with costs.

Read more about this Article 78 driver's license revocation appeal.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

Five cases of denied accidental disability retirement benefits

In the following cases, the petitioners commenced Article 78 appeals to review the determination of respondent Comptroller denying their application for accidental disability retirement benefits. Each petitioner applied for accidental disability retirement benefits following their accidents and was denied. They next requested a redetermination and hearing which, in all instances, resulted in the Hearing Officer recommending the claim be denied on the grounds that petitioner did not sustain an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. The Comptroller upheld the Hearing Officer’s recommendation and this Article 78 proceeding was commenced. In each case, the Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners, confirming the decision of the Comptroller and dismissing the petitions.

In order to qualify for accidental disability retirement benefits, the underlying accident must be completely out of the ordinary and unexpected and not resulting from a performance of a routine employment duty. The Comptroller has the exclusive authority to decide whether an accident occurred within the meaning of the law and if his determination can be supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld.

Bruno Piccinini v Comptroller of the State of New York

Petitioner, a security service assistant for the State University of New York Police Department, was injured when he tripped on an uneven section of the sidewalk while performing a routine patrol. Since petitioner admitted to patrolling the sector where the accident occurred on a regular basis and to being “very familiar” with the sidewalks, the Comptroller’s determination is supported by adequate evidence.

Read full decision here.

Paul Grutzner v Deputy Comptroller of the State of New York

Petitioner, a retired police officer of 40 years, submitted an application for accidental disability retirement benefits asserting permanent disability due to work-related injuries sustained in 1963, 1982, and 1986 and was denied. Petitioner testified to performing normal work duties of a police officer when each of the incidents occurred. In 1963, petitioner was attempting to climb a stairwell with missing steps while investigating a possible burglary when he fell. He was aware that the steps were damaged and therefore the fall was the result of his own misstep. In 1982, petitioner was riding a motorized dirt bike as part of a security detail when the bike “kicked-out” while descending a hill causing him to be injured. Petitioner was an accomplished motorcycle rider and admitted to riding down the same hill three times that day. Therefore, the incident resulted from an ordinary work related duty. In 1986, petitioner was injured while attempting to kick open a locked door to execute an arrest warrant. He attested to having done the same activity 150-200 times before indicating that the incident was not sudden and unexpected.

Read full decision here.

Michael Lorenzo v Comptroller of the State of New York

Petitioner, a detective employed by the City of Yonkers Police Department, injured his neck while exiting a police car in 2003. Petitioner claimed his disability was due to two earlier incidents, in 1991 and 1992, in addition to the accident in 2003. In 2003, the petitioner parked his unmarked car too closely to the adjacent car and hit his head while trying to get out of the car. Petitioner testified that “go[ing] out and arrest[ing] bad guys” were activities that would require him to enter an exit his police vehicle supporting the Comptroller’s assertion that the event precipitating petitioner’s injury was a inherent risk in the performance of his routine duties. Petitioner failed to establish that his neck injury was caused by the incidences in 1991 and 1992.

Read full decision here.

Martha DeLaCruz v Comptroller of the State of New York

Petitioner, a criminal investigator for the Westchester County District Attorney’s office, was injured when she fell during a training program in dignitary protection. Petitioner was newly assigned to the position of driver and bodyguard for the District Attorney and was injured completing a training exercise in which she had been previously instructed on how to act during it. Therefore, the incident in question resulted from part of petitioner’s ordinary job duties and was not an accident according to the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law.

Read full decision here.

Kenneth Rolon v Comptroller of the State of New York

Petitioner, a police officer employed by the City of Newburgh Police Department, sustained a back injury while changing a flat tire on his patrol car. Petitioner testified that he had never changed a flat tire before and usually a mechanic would be dispatched to do this task. In this case however, petitioner’s watch commander directed him to change the tire because a mechanic was unavailable and part of petitioner’s duties included following the orders of his watch commander. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the Comptroller’s determination that petitioner was injured while performing regular employment duties.

Read full decision here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.

Willets Point residents filing an Article 78 against redevelopment project

Seventy-seven year old Joe Ardizzone has lived in Willets Point his entire life. He owns a house and rents out the downstairs as a deli and restaurant. The city is planning a $3 billion redevelopment project that includes housing, a school, offices and shops, a hotel, and a small convention center on the land now occupied by businesses and Ardizzone. Mr. Ardizzone does not want to leave the house he was born in on Willets Point Boulevard and is angry over the way the city has forced their project on the people working in Willets Point. He is also concerned about the lack of a sewage treatment plant that would be necessary to handle the expected influx of people with the new development. Supporting Ardizzone are members of Willets Point United which is composed of business owners who are fighting to keep their property. This group has commenced an Article 78 challenging the environmental review done by the city in Willets Point and is currently waiting a judge’s decision. An eminent domain hearing is expected to be held early next year.

Read full article here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78.

For other interesting information in the personal injury file go to www.negligenceatty.com.