In the Matter of James R. Diegelman et al., Appellants,v.City of Buffalo et al., Respondents.BriefN.Y.October 14, 2016To be Argued by: DAVID M. LEE (Time Requested: 10 Minutes) APL-2015-00316 Appellate Division Docket No. CA 14-01919 Erie County Clerk’s Index No. 2013-801512 Court of Appeals of the State of New York In the Matter of the Claim of JAMES R. DIEGELMAN and ANDREA M. DIEGELMAN, Claimants-Appellants, – against – CITY OF BUFFALO and CITY OF BUFFALO BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondents-Respondents. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS TIMOTHY A. BALL CORPORATION COUNSEL David M. Lee Assistant Corporation Counsel Attorney for Respondents-Respondents 1101 City Hall 65 Niagara Square Buffalo, New York 14202 Tel.: (716) 851-4333 Fax: (716) 851-4105 Dated: June 6, 2016 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... ii STATUS OF RELATED LITIGATION ..................................................................... 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................... 2 QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................................................................................... 2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 2 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................. 5 POINT I A POLICE OFFICER’S RIGHT TO THE RECEIPT OF BENEFITS UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW §207-C BARS A CLAIM AGAINST THE OFFICER’S MUNICIPAL EMPLOYER ................................... 5 POINT II THE CLAIM AGAINST THE BOARD OF EDUCATION IS BARRED UNDER THE TRADITIONAL FACTORS THAT COURTS CONSIDER IN DECIDING AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM .......................................................................................... 12 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 13 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page Birmingham v. City of Niagara Falls, 282 A.D. 970 (3rd Dept., 1953) ...................................................................... 9 Balcerak v. Cty. of Nassau, 94 N.Y.2d 253 (1999) ...................................................................................... 8 Damiani v. City of Buffalo, 198 A.D.2d 814 (4th Dept., 1993), lv. denied, 83 N.Y.2d 757 (1994) .................................................................... 10 Diegelman v. City of Buffalo, 129 A.D.3d 1527 (4th Dept., 2015) ............................................................... 2 El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19 (2015) ......................................................................................... 9 Galapo v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 568 (2000) ...................................................................................... 2 Gammons v. City of New York, 24 N.Y.3d 562 (2014) ...................................................................................... 6 Giuffrida v. Citibank Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 72 (2003) ...................................................................................... 3 Isabella v. Hallock, 22 N.Y.3d 788 (2014) ...................................................................................... 4 Santangelo v. State, 71 N.Y.2d 393 (1988) ...................................................................................... 3 Williams v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 352 (2004) ......................................................................................... 3 Matter of Syracuse Police Dept., 2002 WL 1128160 (Work. Comp. Bd., 2002) ............................................ 5-6 McKay v. Town of W. Seneca, 51 A.D.2d 373 (3rd Dept., 1977), rev’d 41 N.Y.2d 931 (1977) ............................................................................. 11 Weiner v. City of New York, 19 N.Y.3d 852, 855 (2012), aff’g 84 A.D.3d 140 (2nd Dept., 2011) ............................................................................................... 6, 7 iii Other Authorities: Administrative Code §12-127(b) ............................................................................... 5 Administrative Code §14-122.1(a) ............................................................................ 5 Administrative Code §15-108.1(a) ............................................................................ 5 General Municipal Law §205-a ................................................................................... 3, 9 General Municipal Law §205-e .......................................................................... 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 General Municipal Law §207-a ................................................................................... 4, 5 General Municipal Law §207-c ................................................................................... passim General Obligations Law §11-106 ............................................................................. 3 L. 1914, ch. 41 ............................................................................................................... 5 L. 1935, ch. 800, §2 ...................................................................................................... 3 L. 1941, ch. 15, §2 ......................................................................................................... 4 L. 1961, ch. 920, §1 ...................................................................................................... 4 L. 1978, ch. 79, §1 ......................................................................................................... 4 L. 1989, ch. 346, §1 ...................................................................................................... 3, 7 L. 1996, ch. 703, §5 ...................................................................................................... 3 Workers’ Compensation Law §1 .............................................................................. 4 Workers’ Compensation Law §3 .............................................................................. 5 Workers’ Compensation Law §11 ............................................................................ 4 Workers’ Compensation Law §25(4)(a) .................................................................. 9 Workers’ Compensation Law §29(6) ....................................................................... 4 Workers’ Compensation Law §30 ............................................................................ 8 1 STATUS OF RELATED LITIGATION The Supreme Court, Erie County granted the application of James and Andrea Diegelman for leave to serve a late Notice of Claim upon the City of Buffalo (City) and the Buffalo Board of Education (Board of Education). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department reversed, prompting this appeal. The Diegelmans commenced an action in Supreme Court against the City and Board of Education after they were given permission to serve a late Notice of Claim. However, as a consequence of the Fourth Department’s reversal, the Diegelmans’ action has been rendered moot. Following the Appellate Division’s reversal, the Diegelmans commenced a second action in Supreme Court against twenty-three (23) other defendants which allegedly manufactured, distributed and/or installed injury-producing products. Upon information and belief, that action is still pending. 2 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In Diegelman v. City of Buffalo, 129 A.D.3d 1527 (4th Dept., 2015), the court decided that the claim of James Diegelman, who was allegedly exposed to asbestos during the course of his employment as a Buffalo Police Officer, was barred by General Municipal Law §207-c. The City and Board of Education submit this Brief in support of their request that this Court affirm the unanimous decision of the Fourth Department. QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court is asked to decide whether the claim of a former Buffalo Police Officer brought pursuant to General Municipal Law §205-e is barred against the City of Buffalo by General Municipal Law §207-c. Should the Court answer yes, it will need to decide whether or not to consider a question unpreserved for its review, specifically, whether the officer may interpose his claim against the Board of Education. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND A. THE FIREFIGHTER’S RULE. At common law, the long-standing doctrine known as the “firefighter’s rule” barred recovery by firefighters for injuries resulting from the risks inherent in that type of employment. Galapo v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 568, 573 (2000). In 1935, the Legislature first began to do away with the firefighter’s rule with its 3 enactment of General Municipal Law §205-a, which created a cause of action for firefighters injured in the line of duty as a result of violations of statutes or regulations. Giuffrida v. Citibank Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 72, 77 (2003); see L. 1935, ch. 800, §2. In 1988, this Court extended the firefighter’s rule to police officers. Santangelo v. State, 71 N.Y.2d 393 (1988). In 1989, the Legislature responded to Santangelo by enacting General Municipal Law §205-e, which offered police officers the same limited exception to the common-law rule that had been made available to firefighters over 50 years earlier, namely, a cause of action for line-of- duty injuries caused by statutory or regulatory violations. Giuffrida, 100 N.Y.2d at 77; see L. 1989, ch. 346, §1. In 1996, the Legislature largely abolished the firefighter’s rule by enacting General Obligations Law §11-106, which gives firefighters and police officers the right to assert a tort claim against the general public for line-of-duty injuries. Section 11-106, however, maintains the common-law bar on tort claims against employers and co-employees. Thus, liability against a police officer’s or firefighter’s employer or co-employee can only be based on the statutory causes of action in General Municipal Law §§205-a and 205-e. Williams v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 352, 363 (2004); see L. 1996, ch. 703, §5. 4 B. THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW AND THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW. The Workmen’s Compensation Law took effect in New York in 1914. L. 1914, ch. 41. Its title was changed to the Workers’ Compensation Law in 1978. Workers’ Compensation Law §1; see L. 1978, ch. 79, §1. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, the benefits prescribed by the law are the exclusive remedy of an employee injured in the course of employment, thereby barring the employee from recovering against a negligent co-employee or employer. Isabella v. Hallock, 22 N.Y.3d 788, 793 (2014), citing Workers’ Compensation Law §§11 and 29(6). General Municipal Law §207-a was enacted in 1941 to provide payment of the full amount of regular salary or wages to firefighters injured as a result of their duties. The municipality is also responsible for covering all medical treatment and hospital care necessitated by the injury. General Municipal Law §207-a(1); see L. 1941, ch. 15, §2. General Municipal Law §207-c, enacted in 1961, provides the same benefits to police officers injured in the line of duty. General Municipal Law §207-c(1); see L. 1961, ch. 920, §1. C. NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. Finally, because it has a population greater than one million, the City of New York is not subject to General Municipal Law §207-a or §207-c. General 5 Municipal Law §§207-a(1) and 207-c(1). Instead, section 12-127 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York provides medical reimbursement to firefighters and police officers injured on duty. Administrative Code §12-127(b). Sections 14-122.1 and 15-108.1 of the Administrative Code provide police officers and firefighters, respectively, full pay for the period of any incapacity due to line- of-duty injuries. Administrative Code §§14-122.1(a) and 15-108.1(a). ARGUMENT POINT I A POLICE OFFICER’S RIGHT TO THE RECEIPT OF BENEFITS UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW §207-c BARS A CLAIM AGAINST THE OFFICER’S MUNICIPAL EMPLOYER. As a general rule, workers’ compensation coverage is mandatory for almost all employees in employment in New York State. See Workers’ Compensation Law §3 (grouping all current forms of employment whose employees are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits). There are certain exceptions, however. As relevant here, one exception is specified in the Practice Commentary to §3, which states that City of New York police officers are not required to be covered, citing Workers’ Compensation Law §3(1)(Group 17). Additionally, other municipalities in the state are not required to provide coverage for their police officers but may voluntarily elect to do so. Id.; §3(1)(Group 19); Matter of Syracuse 6 Police Dept., 2002 WL 1128160 (Work. Comp. Bd., 2002). Like the City of New York, Buffalo does not provide benefits to its police officers under a workers’ compensation plan. Unlike the City of New York, Buffalo Police Officers are covered by the more generous provisions of General Municipal Law §207-c. The Court’s most recent opinion concerning municipal liability to police officers under General Municipal Law §205-e came in Gammons v. City of New York, 24 N.Y.3d 562 (2014). There, the Court detailed the legislative intent to give broad application to the statute, and ultimately stated that it was the Legislature’s intention to provide police officers with a right to sue in tort against their municipal employers. Id. at 574. Gammons was a police officer’s personal injury action against the City of New York, predicated on an alleged violation of the Labor Law requiring employers to provide a safe workplace for public sector employees. Notwithstanding the Legislature’s intent to apply §205-e expansively, this Court has concluded that it was not the intent of the Legislature to allow the recipients of workers’ compensation benefits to sue their employers under the General Municipal Law. Weiner v. City of New York, 19 N.Y.3d 852, 855 (2012), aff’g 84 A.D.3d 140 (2nd Dept., 2011). This conclusion is supported by the language at the end of General Municipal Law §205-e(1), which preserves the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. 7 Thus, the Diegelmans argue that the right of action under General Municipal Law §205-e is barred only when an injured police officer is entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits, not benefits under General Municipal Law §207-c. This argument is refuted by the legislative history of General Municipal Law §205-e’s proviso relating to the workers’ compensation limitation, which has been part of the statute since its enactment in 1989. According the Second Department in Weiner, “this language was intended to address concerns expressed during the legislative process as to the possible effect of the legislation.” 84 A.D.3d 140, 148 (2nd Dept., 2011). The Second Department is correct, as the Bill Jacket for the statute’s 1989 enactment indicates that mayors and other municipal officials were concerned about an earlier version of the bill, introduced in 1988, that did not include the workers’ compensation limitation. Excerpts of Bill Jacket, L. 1989, ch. 346 (App. 7). Significantly, the Budget Report on the 1989 bill states that the bill “does not change the existing legal relationship between police officers and their municipal employers nor does it modify rights and coverage under the Workers’ Compensation law.” App. 8. Thus, the original legislative intent was not to expand the liability of municipal employers by permitting suits against them. Undoubtedly, §205-e was enacted to overrule this Court’s decision in Santangelo that extended 8 the firefighter’s rule to police officers. Simply, the Legislature believed that firefighters and police officers deserved the same protection. The 1989 bill was enacted to erase an inequity. App. 5-6. Although this Court has been directed by a series of amendments to §205-e to apply the statute expansively, the statute was never originally intended to allow police officers to sue the municipalities they work for. Thus, the legislative history of the 1996 amendments to §205-e upon which the Diegelmans rely is an entirely misleading guide to the Legislature’s original intent in enacting the statute. Pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c, injured police officers are afforded full salary and complete payment of their medical and hospital expenses. The statute is essentially a super workers’ compensation scheme for police officers because police work involves a heightened risk of injury. It can be said that municipalities pay workers’ compensation benefits to injured police officers pursuant to section 207-c. Admittedly, the two statutory systems are not the same. Balcerak v. Cty. of Nassau, 94 N.Y.2d 253 (1999). However, the interplay between the two statutes is evident. For example, where workers’ compensation benefits are awarded to a police officer, other than in the City of New York, benefits paid to the officer pursuant to section 207-c are credited against the compensation award. Workers’ Compensation Law §30. In addition, an employer that pays a police officer section 9 207-c benefits is entitled to be reimbursed from an award of compensation to the officer. Id. §25(4)(a). These measures prevent double recoveries by officers and ensure that self-insured municipalities are not required to pay both full wages and compensation benefits. Birmingham v. City of Niagara Falls, 282 A.D. 970 (3rd Dept., 1953). Therefore, contrary to Governor’s approval memorandum, municipalities do not avoid substantial costs by not providing workers’ compensation benefits to police officers. Brief for Diegelmans, App. 9. Similarly, self-insured municipalities, like the City of Buffalo, do not avoid the substantial costs associated with workers’ compensation insurance premiums either. Frankly, there is no good reason to create an exception to the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule for police officers who receive benefits under section 207-c only. The Diegelmans’ reliance on El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 34 (2015), for the proposition that this Court should not read into section 207-c an exclusive remedy provision, is misplaced. In Weiner, the plaintiff, an employee of the fire department, contended that the omission of the workers’ compensation language in General Municipal Law §205-a pertaining to firefighters was deliberate. Notwithstanding this difference in wording, the Court found that the Legislature did not intend to give firefighters, but not police officers, the right to sue as well as receive workers’ compensation benefits. The fact that the Legislature did not 10 impose an exclusive remedy limitation upon section 207-c benefits does not establish that such a limitation was not intended. General Municipal Law §207-c is New York’s workers’ compensation statute for police officers injured in the line of duty. The City of Buffalo does not accept the so-called legislative history created by the City of New York and later adopted by the Governor. In fact, New York City was absolutely wrong in 1996 when it cautioned that the proposed bill would greatly expand the liability for Buffalo because it does not cover its police officers under a workers’ compensation plan. Brief for Diegelmans, App. 15, 21. As of 1993, the law in the Fourth Department was that the right to benefits under section 207-c constituted the “exclusive remedy” regardless of whether a police officer is covered by the Workers’ Compensation Law. Damiani v. City of Buffalo, 198 A.D.2d 814 (4th Dept., 1993), lv. denied, 83 N.Y.2d 757 (1994). Frankly, New York City’s opinions and all of the cases under section 205-e involving New York City police officers are completely irrelevant and inapplicable. New York City does not provide section 207-c benefits to police officers in its employ because it is exempted from the statute. The City’s Administrative Code provides for the payment of benefits to police officers injured in the line of duty. Unlike the Workers’ Compensation Law, those provisions do not state that the benefits shall constitute an injured officer’s exclusive remedy. Although General 11 Municipal Law §207-c does not contain an exclusivity provision either, the benefits prescribed in the statute have been deemed the legal equivalent to workers’ compensation benefits by the appellate courts of this state. Brief for Diegelmans, p. 33, n. 7. This Court should not conclude that those cases were wrongfully decided based on New York City’s groundless objections to the 1996 legislation. In McKay v. Town of W. Seneca, 51 A.D.2d 373 (3rd Dept., 1977), a case about whether a compensation carrier had a lien on a police officer’s personal injury settlement, the court discussed the intermeshing of workers’ compensation payments and benefits payable under section 207-c. The dissenting opinion noted that the statutes were compatible with each other and designed to alleviate the same problem. The dissent found that a “harmonious interlocking” of the two statutes was “possible and salutary.” Id. at 380. This Court reversed the order of the Appellate Division for the reasons stated in the dissent. 41 N.Y.2d 931 (1977). In line with this reasoning, the City and Board of Education urge this Court to accept the view that the statutes reveal an integrated legislative scheme and that the right to section 207-c benefits constitutes Mr. Diegelman’s exclusive remedy. Municipalities across this state other than New York City should be treated equally for purposes of enforcing the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule. All municipalities except New York City are compelled to provide full salary and 12 healthcare benefits to their firefighters and police officers injured on duty pursuant to the General Municipal Law. There is no legal or otherwise rationale basis for distinguishing the rights of municipalities that do not cover those employees under a workers’ compensation plan. The benefits paid under the two compensation statutes are basically identical, with the only difference being the General Municipal Law’s full salary benefit. That difference inures to the benefit of the police officer and has no bearing on the issue in dispute. It certainly should not provide a reason for allowing the officer to bring a personal injury action against his municipal employer. Such a result would, indeed, be arbitrary and unjust to the municipality. POINT II THE CLAIM AGAINST THE BOARD OF EDUCATION IS BARRED UNDER THE TRADITIONAL FACTORS THAT COURTS CONSIDER IN DECIDING AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM. The Diegelmans did not identify or preserve the second question presented for review in their Supreme Court papers or Appellate Division brief. Should the Court elect to reach the merits of the issue, the City of Buffalo recognizes that the Diegelmans right to interpose a claim against the Board of Education is not effected by the exclusivity of the benefits provided for by General Municipal Law §207-c as there is no employer-employee relationship. To the extent the claim against the Board of Education is not patently meritless, leave to serve a late Notice of Claim should be denied because the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting leave to serve a late Notice of Claim. R. 35-37; Point II of respondents' Appellate Division brief at pp. 8-1 0. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons stated above, the order of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, entered June 12, 20 15, should be affirmed. Dated: Buffalo, New York June 6, 2016 By: Respectfully submitted, TIMOTHY A. BALL Corporation Counsel Attorney for Respondents-Respondents H. DAVID M. LE Assistant Corporatio Counsel City of Buffalo Department of Law 65 Niagara Square I I 04 Ci'ty Hall Buffalo, New York 14202 (716) 851-9691 dlee@city-buffalo.com 13 APPENDIX 1 -:'·-,_· . :_··< ·. . . .. : .. ,~ . . . '· · .. . .. ·.-., .. ··.·. -: .. .; . .. . -._-·._ ·-...... ··. ... . . . ·. . . · ... ,.. .... , ............ :. ~ .... :. ·.; :..., .. : ' . .'.THE-UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK .... · . THE $TATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT .. : '.'· .:. .·.·_,. ALBANY, NEW YORK 12230 ·STATE ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION . . l·.DO JI!REBY, certify that the following r~cic,·rds: Ser:ies li590 · COUNStL TO THE GOVtJU:oR l;.EGlSLA!·I\'E BILL 'A.t~p VETO JACK£1'S lSIS9 . . : :. _.:~ : .: : . , are trueandac~urate reproductions of the .orig!r.al cf the records now on file in the .·t:e~ i'o~k State Arcoives . . . ':. .· .. •.': ·.·,. .· .. .-:·:· ·. · .. ··.· ....... -.-·.·.:·: .... : .. .· , .. . _·.· ... =.:·>.-· .. : .. ·_, ... . _ .. ·:. ....... ·'.··. '-·~ ·· ... ·· .· .. ·.' . . · ... : ... ·. ·' .. ...... . ·.:.: ... ··_·: . . . ::.. :'. ·:·.-·· ...- :··. ·,_. , ... ' .''. :- ·: . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have . hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of thE N~<:'n' York State Archives, stat~ Education ·Department, at t~e City of Albany, N.Y .. this. 63*"' day ofl&·lfJ l9Jl . . ARCHIVIST· . t -Ar£hivist ii TITLE . .. ,,~3/lfl oafl · '. : :.:_.>-- .· : .. ;·:. ·: '." '·: .• ·:··.·.-··.·_ ... · ... : '. '. :. : ... ·:_· ··.· ·: .. ' •. ·· .. :: .: .:······· .: . . .. ~ ;- . ; . . . . . . ' . . .',•. · .. ·· . '· ... ·· . .. ·---~ ,_: : . . /: ... -- . (' : .. . ,. -··. " ... · .· .. •.··. '· :' .. ~ 2 ······:··APPROV.AL·: #.:£1 .. ... ' ·:··. ·. ~ :.· .:~ .. :'•, '·.·· . · .. · :· ... ·.::_.. ·.·-. LA\\S 01- HI.~ ASSBIBL \' lll Ll • •• ............ ,.~ ...... , .......... , •• ~ ........ ,.,_ •• , ... ,..- ....... .,.... ........ _ •¥ ..... _ IN SENATE 'r-:.•oo.;:toC ·c• )e"l· ~•t.t~. ,:S~i~·~. ll~o'"!S!. 1\~RtH:, 'l'lu.~Y •• •tac t"'a ··"': c."ct ... te P" ~ ..... !.ee .. orae ..... e ... t.'~" "·!CC tt ot tOI'N'f' '-tee tc ttae tt,JM .... t~£t . ·.0!' ~O;i; G;ht;:~.f\f!·trt~ •~ ACt t~ ••e~~ lht·qt~t•a: ~~r:c:pal 1,.,, in re'ltio~ to e•art:ng cer· u.• p~l:.ce o•,;c••• o• t"e :. rel'l·tu.,~u:v .. a ca;~u of actio" fo• .l!'.;w·~· c.• du\1'1 . . . . . . lN THE ASS[:MBL y BY: D.·\TE RECEI\'ED.B'l' GOHH.:'\OR: · .. ; ',·: · ..... . . · . .. -. ·-. -· -· -·-.· ...... ..;_..,:_,~"-··-· -. ----·--- .:JJ~~ . -~ ·. ....... :': ; . ''.'-' : . :~ .· ... ... ~ .. ·. :\CTJO:\ ~ll'ST BE TAKE~ BY: ~~11$.., ______ _ GO\'.I::R!\OR 'S ACTIO~: --------.- Mt-.ir.orandum ·t\o. -.,.------- . ".'~ . ~·· . ... ...... '• !.· ·,.: : .. .: ' ... :·: . . .: '! • ... : ·:.:··. . .. -~ . /. .. : ·.· ·· .. ..·:: : : · .. =·· .. · ·:· ... ' ... ... ·· .··· ... ... ·· .. ! . :· . ~ . . ·· .. ' I . ·.· ' ... ' :. ; . : .' : .. ~· .. ~ - '.'· ..• i ·.,·.' · . :: ' · . .. .. ·:( , '· .... :...-.... :.: ·a:. . : . ..~ :_ "! ' ': • '. ~ ~ '. ·· .. .. .., ... ·~· .. ; ' ; •' ·. ·.: ' • ·· .. ,· . . .. : . ' .. ··: : .. : ... ,.· 4 ·.·:·.·.; .... ··· . \·. ···: ..... · :.:: ..... .. ,·,. :·:.·. ·: .).·1·.:· iNCh ..Jijb.IJ.J'ty'.to.bj d!tirnilnjd tnd··sych··,""'·r•gPVered In an action to .2. ·:bt ·. ln'atftytt1f by ··aay·:ptrjan . fnly'ctd· 9( tfit flniily.or C!latiYtl of lOY· 3:.:parepn kiJ1td·.,,. efortttlfe .. proy·ldtd. hOW!vtr. that nothing In this ••c· .,. tlen tht!l·l!e dtft!!l· to txund·Or rattrlct •nr rlabt lfforded to· or lim· S .. >_.ftttlon ·lriM••d .. ypon atr •p1oxtr.· ·an !mploree or .;hJs ·or her repreaenta- . . . 6· j!Ve·by··yl[tue Of iinr Dr0vlslont of ·tht WOrkers' '·' . .'.: ,;:~·; ·. Sine~ l935~ ·Section :!OS;,;.a was enacted to allo'IT firefighters .·.··<',? t})ed:igh;t j:o i;ecover daniages for injury or death, ;;;,;.:;g\: : ::' · ,:_: · L~~t yeai;; the New York State Court of Appeals in Santanselo ·.;; :,: '·. ·: :..-v.~··State (71NY2c.1. .393) ruled that on-duty policemen were not ···: .. ;\,: ··· ':aJ.·low~d .to. rec·uver. for damages based on the negligfmce of a third : 'or>i> .. j)~rt:Y.. 'l'h~ .Cc\trt. su.pported their findings on the basis of · .. · :;: ... · .·".f:!c:Und·.corisi(!.eratl.on of pubU.c policy." Previously, in ;;:..:;:<~::, , .. ~- ,:·:: .; :Safntan.:,:~'->;·:'< ;-: .:.- ·.. .. ··;:the_·.cornplidn't .. against. the State on the basis of assumption of .f,,, · ., ;:· ri;sk 'by :the 'police Off'icers in performing their duties, ···:: .< :···· . . : . . ' ·~ . . . . ... ·. . ; '.': :. ~iie ·~bsenc~ of a law to protect the policemen is totally . ~nfi:li~.:·where for the last fifty years the firefighters have had a :;_L:·:·: ... ··:_.:· · :. · .. st·atute to protect them. :/~;}':~;·:·'~·?"" ~.~ :;_\ ' .... ~ . ' ' ~ - . . .. ~.:J~:{.i_ .. ~f:;_ ...... ·:_·· ..... :..:--;: · ... ·.··_ 11 r£·.a fdi:bemanh.and a 1 '·J?Olidcemban adre in a.burniin 1 g ~uildJ.f'ng d . : . ,. :;.;·-·.· ... to.ge·t _er·-an . ot. ·a~e: nJure . y a. efect l.n v o atJ.on o co e, ·'"'' ".:, · ... ·.~.> ..... -... ~ ... t.J:ie:-;firern~.n .. is abie to· recov¢r for. his damages while the }i~;{:;}~· .. : .:.~ ,':: ,·;._,/~~~:i~:~:7~n. is ·not. ···~his si~uation is not tolerable. ;:·: '"'" .... ··:::···.::·._;_:_:_,.~·-.:_..:·,·~;:· .. . /·.,:: . '" ;. .·. ~-~~.~-.~:·~,.:.·:.; ., :.'- .. . """;". _:.: ·<.: ·:- :.:2 .: ~· .. ·.· •..• ·· .··,.": -· ' .-' -.".<···;· . .'. ·: . -~. . .. . ' . ·. · •. ~ .. ··:' . ;·.·· :~-?~·~~\+(f:·i/.\ · .. :;·.::i.":::.. ::::··. -~ t~~)"s;~~:;:·r :::: . , .·· ... ·· , ·... d: :·c s ti~l~~~~~.l!.!~~-: .. :_; .. _., . :_;;,2;;• . :· .. •.- .:· ...... , .. _":,:'::. ··::·.:. . .. ~ .. ·•.· . .·.··"< ... ; .. 6 ··.· ..... ·· = .. :·, .. ·· ....... ·,.:· ... ·. , > ,o:rhe Gov~~~i~~· 1 by signing t}lis bill I will .erase this . inequity·;.·_- I whole.hfiart:edly epcourao '-: 0 ' 0 : :·:.: 0 0: ~ •• ··:: .. : .:;:.>\··:-: ' . .. ~: . ... :· ·. ·, · :: ·;_::- ,.,_ · .. :·.'F;~tit.:u.-- .. :a~Y.-.:2,. i'98}3 ·:,;>~· .;·.: .. : .. · .. -~.;· :" .. . . ·'·'.· ' .~:··._:'·.• .. ':; ;·,·. : :< .···,: i;.i _;·-.;s;:.(;.elii:!:l'.~l;t.llillfciyal I,aw 'to .. provida poli::a of!:l. 1 ·cers or th.~~-r ~undvors ,..... .---,,·wi•th 'a'•.right:.of action agains.t any party wh ch may have been :i•,,t:,)~;·.>:''·? ;:_:-i:e;~.~()~l;ii;ll~·fo·r: the polJce officer's injury or death. L:' .: ::· ... · .·:'• ·>Ttie:am·EHidment·to.hiis bill contains language which addresses •-::·:<;,.:;:;:•>·· .. ,:. .. · , .. a ::·C:oncern•~o£ · ttie··>::::·,:< :'•.'; :imp~c.fcpf'.thilii p~oposed 'legislation upon provisions of the workers' ,;;.,,, ... ;>;.: :¢oJ!iperisatlon Law., ·.In v.iew of this amendment to the bill, the ~?-~(;;:;:;; ,:·iiY·· ~p:iivJous·:objections of th.is organization are rem.oved and the H:;:i-'·) :. !\;::i;'-'ii:lJi;i, t~. ·su~por t:ed ~ · · ...... - ... ····:<·: .. ~.-:·~_:: :.::~.·. ' . i .: '. . .: ·. ·;~;·:~{ :-:: .. ~~~~~~-;:~ ~:· :=-.t: .:.:"_· .;·. : .. · . '.: . ... . . ... -.. ... ·.··.;._: cr8'(;/~n. c > . . ::.: :.< .. . ,;~,.:,,~. <~:'_.,::;;:;:,:_·.: ''·. ..... . ~ .. ' . f.:_.-~·.:~. · . ..:--'::: ~: . . . :.. • . . . ... ·" . :_. . ··:-_, .. · .. · :.· .... . , .':: .. , ,· .:'\·. •' . ~.: ·:- .· :i: . ·:'o, .,, ..... , .. :;~;~:>·: . . ... .. :.· . :··: .. ttft:~~~·-:~ .· ...... ":: .. ,_. ·. ( : ,. JL{ G t·· TEN DAY ~UDGET · ~PORT ON BILla Ses•ion Year:~ Intrpduced by& A$SEMBLY No. :·f': :. ··t.a~:~;,· o~nez'aT . ~funic lpal ·Section•: 205(e) New tX/>Y::.·::>f:~:;':_;·::·~? .;:·~:: .· .-:::~: ·. . . . . :_,.-\ ''Pivls~·oq .'~f. ~e:: Blidqet: ·;eco.-endation on the above bill: \··.:. ". ' J ••• •• •• • • •• : · ' '• \ : . .. . ~. ·:•. ··.: •• ·: •• . : • ;i><:~~~f~~e.;_).:::·:::·.:.: .. ·..:.;·y~io~ ... · No: O))j~tion: x No Recommendation: .< > ·,:. · :·· :: ;~: ·,;.: SUpfect .and Purpose'·: . To provide police officers or their ---<·". ::."·~ ·.··.~·.' . ,':repr~sentat-ives t· .s:~c.tfon 2'05'::-e. 'to· ··t~e G~neral Municipal Law providing the right of •/.~' ~':.- . ·.J.:; ' :;•.,a.ctipJ:t· ·tq - l~j~;~red polic;:~ officers or represe.ntatives of deceased ,(:: ... :..-/ ;··. ; :~ .-~~l.A¢.!l:.::~.f.t~'¢~r~ ~- .. Polipe · officers or their representati':'es may seek :; :t·:··;., ,-.:.: .. ·:·., .· t: .. ;_; ... :<::·:·.:-::·:·: ··,C!p p~I:fi~ns . t~. :col!IP.~)' with· the requir~ments of any of the statutes, ·:';.·::;·-.:·':_ ·· . .:_.· :· · .. . :·.o~d.~i13'i'lC:$.li'•; rules, ,. orders .and· requi,_rements of the Federal, State, ~:~:.t,-.. :;.- ~·;,_ •: -.:-~s:n~~~:y:;, ·v:J,.l.l~q~ , t~wn ot.: city_ .-:::.~.'· :~:;·)··~·:::.~ai~fadye' ·a .iitc!eyi . Th:is . le?:.' ;', '.'. ·":':~· : .:-- .. ,. .. : ~- .': ... . . . . . .. . .. :: ·.'.~· · .. · :. .; .. :'4 ;. ~ A't'gtinients ·'iil ~upport: . The court;s have upheld the c¥>ctrine of '=, ::!··.~.>>'· :. :::;. ·· ·a.l>~umption · ~f ·. risJf fc;iz: . police ·.qffi.cers so that if, 1for· example, an ·!:'(·;y:;~·: ..... :·; ·· .. ::~n-~dut¥: o;t;ticet:: 1s . bitten· by· a 'd09· which according to local /}:.··;_.·_~;.,<~: · ;:~:-~:R.roi~a~c.e: .. s.hou~~ ' !lave. been leashed or contained, the officer could ·~:-:·.: . -~·-.: ~!.-:,:::: .. ,_•;n!>..t :'sUEf· ,~h,e,·:.ownf!r~ -· Hpl!fe'lt~r , an off.::.duty officer or a private :.:r .. ·(··· .';.:: ,t,:·· :.' ci.t .i;,er:a ·.poiq·!l- · s~e}c'. legal r edress ·aqainst the owner of the dog . ;:';t; Ji_._ .. :_:_. . ~:•·_,.·::. ,_,·:_.,_.--.:~_:_·_,.· · ,_ ·, · · · ·~~:~m~fP!;;~r.it=~~;!~:~~1§1~~~~~~~:t ~: _ · lrij\!-r~es. ·sustained . in the line of duty due to the -~ \~~';/:/:·. . .. ·. o~.: ;,s.om~ . oth_~r .. Party. -:~tic~:~:~ ' not ·'cha~