Posted on July 22, 2010 by Kevin Sheerin

Article 78 petition dismissed; Petitioners granted judgment based upon Collective Bargaining Agreement

 

Matter of William Giblin et al v. Village of Johnson City

 

Petitioner sought to appeal an order form the Supreme Court which granted petitioner’s application to terminate health insurance benefits to petitioner current wife, Patricia Giblin. This was a combined proceeding pursuant to Article 78 and an action for a declaratory judgment.

 

Petitioner William Giblin retired as a firefighter from the respondent. According to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), upon retirement, the petitioner “…shall continue to receive…” family coverage health insurance for himself and his dependents.

 

In February 2009, petitioner divorced his then-wife, which automatically terminated health coverage for his ex-wife and switch the petitioner to an individual health insurance plan. In March 2009, the petitioner married petitioner Patricia Giblin. William Giblin requested that his current wife be added to his health coverage plan. Respondent informed the petitioner that he did not have the family plan and was no longer permitted to it.

 

The Supreme Court only terminated the order and instructed the respondent to extend health coverage to Patricia Giblin. According to the court, the petition would be dismissed under Article 78 because this falls under a breach of contract. Therefore, the claim will be resolved under traditional rules of contract.
 

Furthermore, respondent violated its contractual responsibility in failing to provide health coverage to the petitioner’s dependent. According to the collective bargaining agreement, retirees will “continue to receive” health insurance for himself and his dependents. The CBA does not state any limits for the dependents at the time of retirement, nor does it specifically state anything prohibiting retirees to change the type of coverage.

 

Based on the CBA, the court ordered that the judgment and order be modified, without costs, by dismissing the Article 78 petition and declaring that Patricia Giblin be provide health insurance coverage as a dependent of retiree, William Giblin.

 

Read more about this Article 78  case here.

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

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on July 20, 2010 by Kevin Sheerin

Petitioner granted sick leave pursuant to CPLR Article 78

 

Matter of Richard J. Sherwood v Town of Lancaster

In this Article 78 case, the petitioner sought to appeal the Supreme Court ruling that he was ineligible to receive credit for unused vacation and sick leave accrued as of the date of his retirement.

According to the Appellate Division, petitioner resigned from his position as Town Attorney, therefore making him ineligible for a credit of unused vacation days. Because the petitioner chose to resign effective immediately, he is not entitled to that credit, which follows the explicit terms of Article 3 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Petitioner’s also alleges that he is entitled to credit for unused sick days, which falls under Article 5 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The court concluded that the CBA provisions concerning retirement unambiguously apply to petitioner, entitling him to a credit for unused sick leave that he accrued. Previously, the court made a mistake in concluding that Article 5 of the CBA applied only to those who have actually applied for retirement through NYS Employee’s Retirement System to receive credit for accumulated sick days. The CBA stated nothing to this effect. Therefore, the court concluded that the retirement stated in Article 5 of the CBA applies to the petitioner, making him eligible to a credit for accrued sick days.

The judgment was modified. Petitioner’s claims under the CBA and under the Retirement and Social Security Law § 41 (j) were granted for only the accumulated sick days from the date of petitioner's reappointment as Town Attorney through the date of his retirement.

Read more about this Article 78 employment case 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.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,