Preview:

City of Middletown v City of Middletown Police Benevolent Assn. 2010 NY Slip Op 30388(U) March 2, 2010 Supreme Court, Albany County Docket Number: 8975/09 Judge: Joseph C. Teresi Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

[* 1]

STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT In the Matter of the Application of CITY OF MIDDLETOWN, Petitioner, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules ~againstCITY OF MIDDLETOWN POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION and the STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELA nONS BOARD, Respondents.

COUNTY OF ALBANY

DECISION and ORDER INDEX NO. 8975-09 RJI NO. 01-09-ST0808

Supreme Court Albany County All Purpose Term, February 5, 2010 Assigned to Justice Joseph C. Teresi

APPEARANCES: Alex Smith, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioner 16 James Street Middletown, New York 10940 David P. Quinn, Esq. Attorney for the Respondent NYS Public Employment Relations Board 80 Wolf Road Fifth Floor -Room 500 Albany, New York 12205 . John M. Crotty, Esq. Attorney for Respondent City of Middletown Police Benevolent Association 1 Spring Square Business Park Newburgh, New York 12550

1

[* 2]

TERESI,J.:
On or before February 20,2007, the City of Middletown Police Benevolent Association's (hereinafter "MPBA") collective bargaining negotiations with Petitioner reached an impasse. As a result, MPBA submitted a petition for compulsory interest arbitration including demands for a "Bill of Rights ... [and] a Disciplinary Procedure". Petitioner filed an amended improper practice charge objecting to MPBA's petition, and MPBA answered. The parties' dispute was resolved by the Public Employment Relations Board's (hereinafter "PERB") Decision and Order, dated September 17,2009 (hereinafter "Decision and Order"). PERB held, as is relevant to this proceeding, that MPBA's "proposals for disciplinary procedures and a bill of rights are not prohibited [from collective bargaining for]. .. honorably discharged veterans and volunteer firefighters." Petitioner commenced this proceeding specifically challenging only that portion of PERB's Decision and Order. Both Respondents answered, neither set forth crossclaims or counter claims, and both seek denial of the petition. Because PERB' s Decision and Order was affected by an error of law, the petition is granted. "It is well settled that [PERB's] determination will not be disturbed unless it is affected by an error of law, is arbitrary and capricious or constitutes an abuse of discretion." (Uniform

Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562, IAFF, AFL-CIO v. Cuevas, 276 AD2d 184 [3d Dept. 2000]). Here, "collective bargaining [is required] ... where no legislation specifically commits police discipline to the discretion oflocal officials ... [however] where such legislation is in force, the policy favoring control over the police prevails, and collective bargaining over disciplinary matters is prohibited." (Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City ofN.Y., Inc. v New

York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 6 NY3d 563 [2006]). While PERB's determination is

2

[* 3]

entitled to deference if it is within its area of expertise; it is not entitled to any deference where, as is the case here, it analyzes the "relative weight to be given to competing policies." (Id. at 575, see also City of Mount Vernon v. Cuevas, 289 AD2d 674 [3d Dept. 2001]) As found by PERB in its Decision and Order, the Petitioner's City Charter I provides a specific disciplinary structure applicable to its police force. Where this type of "legislation specifically commits police discipline to the discretion of local officials ... the policy favoring [local] control over the police prevails, and collective bargaining over disciplinary matters is prohibited." (Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City ofN.Y., Inc., supra at 571-72). Because MPBA's "Bill of Rights" and "Disciplinary Procedure" demands both seek "collective bargaining over disciplinary matters" they are prohibited. (Id.). MPBA's argument to the contrary relies on a narrow reading of Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City ofN.Y., Inc., which is not warranted by such Decision's broad applicability and policy analysis. PERB's Decision and Order, however, excluded from the general prohibition of collective bargaining a subset of police officers, "honorably discharged veterans and volunteer firefighters." This portion ofPERB's Decision and Order is affected by an error oflaw.

Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City ofN.Y., Inc.'s prohibition precludes collective bargaining of police disciplinary matters where the legislature has vested such authority with local officials. Such holding was based upon the Court's finding that laws granting local authority "expressed a policy so important that the policy favoring collective bargaining should give way." (Id. at 576). While Petitioner demonstrated the applicability of

Adopted by state statute in 1902 (L 1902, c 572) and amended by state statute in 1942 (L 1942, c 339).
I

3

[* 4]

Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N. Y., Inc.' s prohibition, neither Respondent demonstrated that the above policy analysis should not apply equally to the entire Middletown police force. Nor did they demonstrate that the policy favoring collective bargaining for "discharged veterans and volunteer firefighters" outweighs the policy inherent in the law granting local control over police discipline. Importantly, the Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City ofN. Y, Inc. decision includes no exceptions to its general applicability, although the same exclusions sought here could have applied in that case. Additionally, Respondents' claim that

Petitioner recognized Civil Service Law

Download 2010_30388.pdf

New York Law