Claims for certain health insurance benefits and the liquidationof sick leave credits upon retirement rejectedDecision 1. Suttlehan v Town of New Windsor, 2012 NY Slip Op07292, Appellate Division, Second Department [re: Health Insurance]Decision 2. Suttlehan v Town of New Windsor, 2012 NY Slip Op07293, Appellate Division, Second Department [re: Sick Leave Credits]
Town of New WindsorTown Justice Donald J. Suttlehan sued the Town, contending that it was inbreach of contracts when it (1) eliminated his alleged entitlement, upon hisretirement, to fully paid lifetime health care benefits for himself and hisspouse [Decision 1] and (2) failing to pay him for his unused sick-leavecredits upon his retirement [Decision 2].
On January 7, 2009, the Town adopted resolutionsprospectively awarding Justice Suttlehan [a] “fully paid lifetime medical benefits for himself and his spouse”upon his retirement and [b] granted certain post-retirement health-care benefitsto elected officials with eight years or more of service. On May 6, 2009 theTown adopted a resolution revoking its January 7, 2009 action with respect to providing “lifetime health care benefits” and Town modified itsearlier “unused sick-leave” resolution in accordance with a new schedule.
Justice Suttlehan retired in July 2009. He then filed petitionsin Supreme Court challenging the Town’s actions that he alleged truncated certain benefits to which he claimed he was entitled upon his retirement..
With respect to his claim to “lifetime medical benefits,”Justice Suttlehan alleged “breach of contract and promissory estoppel….” Heargued that, among other things, that the Town’s January 7, 2009 resolutionimposed a contractual obligation upon the Town to provide him with lifetimemedical benefits or, in the alternative, that, by adopting the resolution, theTown became obligated to provide him with those benefits under the theory ofpromissory estoppel.
The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court’sdismissal of Justice Suttlehan’s petition, holding that the Town had met its “primafacie burden of establishing that [it was] not obligated to providelifetime medical benefits to the plaintiff and his spouse, and the plaintifffailed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.”
The Appellate Division said the resolution dated May 6,2009, which revised Justice Suttlehan’s health-care benefits only withrespect to coverage for claims made, or to be made, subsequent to hisseparation from Town employment, was not discriminatory as it was applicable tovarious elected officials -- the Town Supervisor, Town Clerk, Superintendent ofHighways, Receiver of Taxes, Town Justices, and members of the Town Board -- aswell as to the Town’s judiciary.
Rejecting Justice Suttlehan’s argument that the resolutionviolated his rights pursuant to the separation of powers doctrine or the compensation clause of the New York Constitution, the Appellate Division notedthat the resolution addressed the prospective reduction of a municipalofficial's health benefits only after his or her retirement, not the reductionin the salary or benefits of a justice during his or her term in office.
In any event, said the Appellate Division, "[a]municipal resolution is, in general, a unilateral action that is temporary innature and, thus, it does not create any vested contractual rights,"citing Aeneas McDonald Police Benevolent Assn. v City of Geneva, 92 NY2d326.
As to Justice Suttlehan’s cause of action to recover damagesfor breach of contract with respect to the liquidation of his unused sick-leave credits, Supreme Courtheld that he was entitled to payment for 397 unused sick days, The Townappealed the court’s decision.
The Appellate Division vacated the Supreme Court’s ruling,holding that "In general, a public employee whose employment hasterminated may not recover the monetary value of unused . . . sick time in theabsence of statutory or contractual authority."
The Town, said the court, had met its prima facieburden of showing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bydemonstrating that there was no statutory or contractual authority for therelief sought by Justice Suttlehan and Supreme Court should have dismissed the Justice’scause of action to recover damages for breach of contract with regard paymentfor his unused sick-leave credits.
The “health insurance” decision is posted on the Internetat:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07292.htm
The “sick leave” decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07293.htm
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder