Matter of Sheriff Officers Assoc., Inc. v County of Nassau

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Sheriff Officers Assoc., Inc. v County of Nassau 2012 NY Slip Op 30837(U) March 26, 2012 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 453/12 Judge: Karen V. Murphy 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] Short Form Order SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW. YORK TRIAL TERM. PART 11 NASSAU COUNTY PRESENT: Murphv Justice of the Supreme Court Honorable Karen JI In the Matter of the Application of Index No. 453/12 SHERIF OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, INC., CORRCTION CORPORALS EUGENE O' BRIEN, FJUD CANGERO, LINA GUAGLIAO, JAMES MCCAN, and all other similarly affected correction corporals Motion Submitted: 1/24/12 Motion Sequence: 001 Petitioner(s), For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules -againstCOUNTY OF NASSAU, EDWAR P. MAGANO, as the County Executive, COUNTY OF NASSAU SHERIFF' S DEPARTMENT, and MICHAEL SPOSATO, as Sheriffofthe County of Nassau Sheriffs Department, Respondent(s). The following papers read on this motion: Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause........................ Answering Papers.......................................................... Reply............................................................................. . Briefs: Plaintiff slPetitioner ' s........................................ Defendant' s/Respondent' s.................................. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Aricle 78 to set aside and anul the abolition of certainjob titles known as corrections corporals , the petitioners Sheriff Officers Association [* 2] Inc. et. , al. move by order to show cause for inter alia a preliminary injunction enjoining the respondents County of Nassau et., at. from demoting certain correction corporals to the title of correction officer. In September of2010 , the Nassau County Legislature adopted Local Law 181- 2010 by which it approved the County budget for the 2011 fiscal year. Subsequently, the Legislature adopted Local Law 160- 2011 , pursuant to which the 2012 budget was adopted. In late December of20 II , however , and in response to the budgetary crisis confronting (see also , Local Law the County, the Legislature enacted Local Laws 16- 2011 and 1982011 2011/2J). In substance , Local Law 198- 2011 permits the County Executive to make inter alia authorizing the termination of (see also , County Law 8204). amendments to both the 2011 and 2012 budgets by, certain County job titles Local Law 16- 2011 contains a brief statement of legislative intent , which advises among other things , that after consulting with the Nassau Interim Finance Authority NIFA" ), the County was required to achieve stated " Budgetary Savings " ($75 milion), to be obtained either through layoffs or negotiated labor concessions , and that since the involved labor unions did not " come forward with the required and mandated savings " the elimination The job titles subject to (Local Law 16-2011/1J). of certain job titles was therefore required abolition were specifically identified and listed in an "Exhibit A" attached as an appendix to Local Law 198- 2011. Among the jobs to be abolished , were some 48 " correction corporals then employed by the Nassau County Sheriff. The correction corporals were also members of the petitioner Sheriff Officers Association (the " Sheriffs Association With respect to the job terminations , section 1 of Local Law 198- 2011 provides , in part , that " (tJhe positions listed. . . in Appendix A to this Ordinance. . . shall be deemed abolished effective no later than December 29 , 2011 , provided that no appropriation for compensation for positions listed in Appendix " A" shall be deemed rescinded with respect to compensation for services performed prior to the effective date of' the abolishment of the listed positions. empowers the County Executive to stay individual line items " in Appendix A through the issuance of an executive order Section 3 of the ordinance , however permits the County Executive to exempt certain job titles from the terminations list , at least temporarily and pending further Legislative review. Specifically, section 3 states inter alia that " (nJothing contained herein shall limit the stay (issued by the County Executive) to an individual line and this shall be interpreted as permitting a stay applicable to individual job [* 3] titles. The stay shall remain in full force and effect until such time as this Legislature has the (see also , Local Law 16-201113), at 3). opportunity to review and approve " any stays issued The petitioner Sheriffs Association asserts that after Local Laws 16- 2011 and 1982011 were enacted , the County Executive never issued a stay relating to the 48 " correction corporals " titles to be abolished. The County respondents contend , however, that County Executive Edward P. Mangano did , in fact , issue two executive orders staying the abolition of some , but not all , of the listed " correction corporals " titles; namely: (1) a purported executive order allegedly issued on or about December 28 , 2011 , staying the termination of an unspecified number of correction corporals titles; and (2) a subsequent stay order issued in early January, 2012 , which amended the first order by reducing the number of titles abolished to 30 (out of the 48 in total listed in Appendix " It bears noting that the County has not actually produced the written executive orders staying the subject , correction corporals positions. Instead , they have submitted an affidavit made by the Nassau County Acting Director of Hum an Resources , Melissa Gallucci , who has averred that the executive orders were in fact issued by County Executive Mangano. According to the Sheriffs Association , prior to the December 29 , 2011 deadline , the County affirmatively implemented in some fashion , certain lay offs and/or demotions affecting some 399 other County employees. The County purportedly did nothing in an affirmative sense to " implement" the abolition of the involved correction corporals " titles although 30 job titles not covered by the executive " stay " orders were , in fact , later (allegedly after December 29 2011) abolished. Significantly, while the foregoing correction corporals titles were abolished , none of the affected officers were actually terminated from their employment; rather , they were instead " demoted" to the lesser title of " correction officer " (County Objections in Law , at 5). The petition alleges , however , that the 30 officers in question were " on a promotion list for correction sergeant." Thereafter , the petitioner Sheriffs Association , together with the affected correction corporals , commenced the within proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to set aside and annul as ilegal , the County' s abolition of the 30 job titles in question. The verified petition contains a single count , which alleges inter alia that the demotions made pursuant to the involved Local Laws violated the doctrine of " legislative equivalency " and were therefore ilegal and void. In sum , the doctrine of legislative equivalency provides that existing legislation can be " repealed or modified only by a [* 4] (Matter of Brunswick Smart Growth, Matter 2d 308; Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Brunswick 51 A. D.3d 1119 , 1120 , 856 N. 2d 395 (2d ofBabor v. Nassau County Civ. Servo Commn. 297 A. 2d 342 343 746 N. 204; Matter of Torre V. County of Nassau 86 N. see also , County Law Dept. , 2002) 2d 465 (1995)). 421 426, 657 N. 2d 486 633 N. legislative act equal to the procedure used to enact it" In support of their claims, the petitioners contend that Local Law 198- 2011 provides the exclusive means by which the listed job title terminations could be lawfully accomplished. The petitioners then assert, in effect , that section 1 of Local Law 198- 2011 is not self- executing or automatic in its application; rather , the petitioners contend , in effect , that affirmative and/or additional enabling conduct by the County was required in order to actually implement the legislatively conferred power to abolish those titles. At the same time , the petitioners contend that pursuant to section I of Local Law 1982011 , the time within which the terminations could be lawfully implemented was temporally they argue that the power to terminate the listed positions could not be circumscribed (see , Local Law 198exercised after the statutorily imposed deadline of December 29 201111/). i. e., 2011 The petitioners then allege that there was never any official , implementing act or conduct by which the County affirmatively abolished the 48 correction corporals titles prior to the foregoing, December , 2011 deadline. Accordingly, since the legislative authority to abolish the listed titles definitively expired on December 29 , 2011 , the petitioners contend that their job titles were , therefore , never legally abolished. Finally, the petitioners claim in sum that because the listed positions were originally funded by Legislative ordinance and since the legislatively conferred power to abolish the listed titles expired before the County actually terminated those positions , the doctrine of " legislative equivalency " applies and therefore requires the adoption of new legislation, not enacted here , expressly authorizing any further terminations. Contemporaneously with the commencement ofthe subject proceeding, the petitioners also moved by order to show cause for relief staying the demotions and/or job title terminations. Upon submission of the petitioners ' papers , the Court struck the temporar restraining order contained in the order to show cause and directed the parties to submit additional papers in support of their respective positions. Those submissions are now before the Court, including the County respondents objections in point of law for dismissal of the proceeding. Upon review of the opposing claims and arguments presented , the Court agrees that petition should be denied and the proceeding dismissed. [* 5] In opposition to the petitioners ' claims , the County relies on an opposing construction of the relevant , statutory language; namely, the County contends in essence , that section I of Local Law 198- 2011 is self-executing and requires no further action by the County, since it than December 29, 2011 . . . . titles " shall be deemed abolished effective no later The County asserts that County (Local Law 198- Executive Mangano did not violate the law by allegedly expressly provides that the subject job 201111/). authorizing post- deadline terminations; instead, and if anything, he actually reduced the number of statutorily authorized (Local terminations by invoking his " stay " powers Law 198-201111), 13/). , as contained in the very same enactment review of the statutory language supports the conclusion that the County' interpretation of the disputed Local Law is persuasive. With respect to questions of statutory construction , it is the duty of the Cour to '" is to (Yatauro v. Mangano, ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature quotingfrom , DaimlerChrysler Y.3d 420 426 955 N. 2d 343 931 N. see , Nostrom Corp. v. Spitzer 7 N. Y.3d 653 , 660 , 860 N. E.2d 705 , 827 N. 2d 725 (2010); Chesterton Co. 15 N. Y.3d 502 , 507 , 940 N. E.2d 551 , 914 N. v. A. Robertsv. Tishman Speyer Props., L. 13 N. Y.3d 270 , 286 918 N. 2d 900, 890 N. 2d405 (2004)). People v. Santi 3 N. Y.3d234 , 243 818 N. 2d 1146 , 785 N. The statutory text is the clearest indicator of legislative intent and courts should construe unambiguous language to give effect to its plain meaning (DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Spitzer supra; Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist. 91 N. 2d 577 583 696 N:E. see also, Crucible Materials Corp. v. New York Power 978 , 673 N. People v. Finley, 13 N. Y.3d 223, 229 918 N. 2d 107 , 889 N. 2d 1 (2008)). Neverteless courts 10 N. Y.3d 647, 654- 655 , 891 N. 2d 1165 , 862 N. should construe (statutesJ to avoid objectionable , uneasonable or absurd consequences " and (People v. Finley, supra; also give effect and meaning to the entire Friedman v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. 9 N. Y.3d 105 , 115- 116, 877 N. 2d 281 , 846 Long v. State of New York 7 N. Y.3d 269 , 273 , 852 N. 2d 1150, 819 204 " empowers the legislative of a county government to establish and abolish positions " through the enactment of " local law(sJ . . . . (Matter of Torre v. County of Nassau, supra. 2d 36 (2011), 2d 88 (2006) 388 (2009); S.2d 966 (1998) 2d 517 (2009); Authority, , statutory enactment S.2d 64 (2007); 2d 679 (2006)). Significantly, Civil Service Law Upon applying these principles to governing statutory language , the Court agrees that the County respondents did not act in excess of their authority or violate the principle of legislative equivalency. More specifically, the Local Law s operative language is contained effective in section 1 , which states inter alia no later than December 29 , 2011 (emphasis added)). The ordinary meaning of the phrase shall be deemed abolished" is clear in its intended import and effect. Specifically, that that the listed titles shall be deemed abolished [* 6] language provides that the specified titles , which were actually attached to , made part of, the statutory enactment itself, were terminated in self-executing fashion no later than December 2011. Although the provision contains language that provides that the terminations would become effective " no later than " December 29 , 2011 , this phrase is reflective of the fact that up until that date , the County Executive is empowered to stay the abolishment of certain job There is no (see , Local Law 198titles through the issuance of an executive order 201113/). other provision or procedure in the Local Law that suggests or requires that resort to affirmative executive action would be necessary before the specified terminations would become effective. Rather , the remedy created by the legislation as drafted , is complete without (el, Matter of Gould the necessity or need for additional or enabling conduct or further action v. Board of Educ. of Sewanhaka Cent. High School Dist. 81 N. Y . 2d 446 , 451 , 616 N . 2d 787 (1993)). 142 599 N. The only relevant portion of the Local Law , which confers a type of discretionary authority upon a third part with respect to the terminations , is section 3 , which as noted above , provides inter alia that " (nJothing contained herein shall limit the stay (issued by the County Executive) to an individual line and this shall be interpreted as permitting a stay applicable to individual job titles (Local Law 198- 201113/). The manner in which the Local Law is framed , including the specific listing of abolished jobs , indicates that the stay provision was intended to confer a measure of executive flexibilty in connection with the otherwise impending terminations abolished by operation oflaw pursuant to section 1. Section 3 does not , however , refer to or require any affirmative enabling conduct by the County Executive as a prerequisite to the termination of the listed job titles. Rather , it merely authorizes the County Executive to exempt or carve out exceptions from , the Legislatively enumerated list of abolished positions , at least temporarily, and until Legislatiye has the opportunity to subsequently review , approve or disapprove the stays issued. The fact that the County Executive is authorized to stay job terminations prior to the December 29 , 2001 deadline , does not establish that a corresponding executive action was therefore required to formally legalize or implement the terminations effected by Local Law 198- 2010 (lJ and there is no language which so provides. The petitioners ' opposing construction of the Local Law is lacking in merit. Assuming that the County may have elected to act prior to December 29 , 2011 , by formally " laying off' other listed job titles , this does not alter the conclusion that the legislation was self-executing in effect and that the job titles were nevertheless deemed substantively abolished , unless Suffolk otherwise stayed by applicable executive order. The Second Department' s holding in [* 7] 2d 344 CountyAssn. ofMun. Employees v. County of Suffolk 175 A. D.2d 202 572 N. (2d Dept. , 1991), relied on by the petitioners , is inapposite. There , the Suffolk County Legislature failed to approve a proposed , employee layoff resolution drafted by the County Executive , after which the County Executive proceeded with the layoffs anyway, absent the required Legislative approval. (175 A. 2d at 203). Lastly, the portion of Local Law 198- 2011(1), which refers to salary or compensation appropriations for abolished titles , does not support the petitioners ' claims. The language in question merely provides , in inconclusive fashion , that compensation appropriations for listed/abolished titles " shall (not) be deemed rescinded" with respect to services performed prior to the effective date of that particular title s abolishment. The Court has considered the petitioners ' remaining contentions and concludes that they are lacking in merit. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits. The foregoing constitutes the Order of this Court. Dated: March 26 2012 Mineola , N. ENTERED MAR 2 9 2012 NASSI.\U C()Ui r\' COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.