Seabrook v City of New York

Seabrook v City of New York 2008 NY Slip Op 09471 [57 AD3d 232] December 4, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Norman Seabrook, Individually and as President of the Correction Officers' Benevolent Association, et al., Appellants,
v
City of New York et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Koehler & Isaacs LLP, New York (Liam L. Castro of counsel), for appellants.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Fay Ng of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered May 7, 2007, which granted defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The agency policy of not allowing an employee to consult with a union representative after a question is posed and before an answer must be given, at an interrogation conducted pursuant to Mayoral Executive Order No. 16, was reasonably designed to promote truthful responses by discouraging coaching. This did not deprive the employee of his right to union representation under Civil Service Law § 75 (2) or NLRB v J. Weingarten, Inc. (420 US 251 [1975]). While plaintiff relies on Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd. (826 A2d 932 [Pa 2003]), which holds the opposite, that case is not binding on this court and we reject its reasoning. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Sweeny and Acosta, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 31103(U).]