DeRosa v. Dyster

• Decision Date: 23 December 2011
• Parties: In the Matter of Patricia DEROSA, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Paul DYSTER, Mayor, City of Niagara Falls, Respondent,andCity of Niagara Falls, Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09363

90 A.D.3d 1470

936 N.Y.S.2d 402

In the Matter of Patricia DEROSA, Petitioner–Respondent,

v.Paul DYSTER, Mayor, City of Niagara Falls, Respondent,andCity of Niagara Falls, Respondent–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Dec. 23, 2011.

Craig H. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, Niagara Falls (Christopher M. Mazur of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant and Respondent.

W. James Schwan, Buffalo, for Petitioner–Respondent.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Petitioner, a retired employee of respondent City of Niagara Falls (City), commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to compel respondent Mayor of the City and the City to provide her with either post-employment health insurance coverage or opt-out payments in lieu of such coverage, pursuant to the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and, inter alia, the union representing petitioner (union). Respondents moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was legally insufficient. Supreme Court granted the petition in part by requiring only the City to provide petitioner with the relief requested, but the court did not specifically rule on the motion. Because the judgment grants the relief sought by petitioner against only the City, we conclude that the court thereby implicitly granted that part of respondents' motion seeking to dismiss the petition against the Mayor. We further conclude that the court erred in denying that part of respondents' motion seeking to dismiss the petition against the City insofar as it sought to compel the City to permit petitioner to opt out of the health care plan and to receive opt-out payments. We therefore modify the judgment accordingly.

We reject the City's contention that petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before commencing this proceeding. Although it is well established that a petitioner cannot maintain a CPLR article 78 proceeding unless he or she has exhausted the available administrative remedies ( see e.g. Matter of Connor v. Town of Niskayuna, 82 A.D.3d 1329, 1330–1331, 917 N.Y.S.2d 759; Matter of One Niagara LLC v. City of Niagara Falls, 78 A.D.3d 1554, 1556, 910 N.Y.S.2d 820), the clear and unambiguous terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the City and the union establish that there were no administrative remedies available to petitioner at the time she first became aggrieved.¹ It is undisputed that the CBA permits grievances concerning retirement benefits, but the CBA expressly limits the availability of the grievance procedure to current employees. Pursuant to Section 4(A) of the CBA, the first procedural stage of the grievance procedure is for an aggrieved “employee” to request “a review and determination of his [or her] grievance by the head of the appropriate department.” Thus, unlike the situation in Matter of City of Niagara Falls, [ Niagara Falls Police Club Inc.] 52 A.D.3d 1327, 860 N.Y.S.2d 372, the grievance procedure set forth in the CBA is “ ‘predicated upon the status of the affected beneficiar[y ...,] as [an] active employee or retiree’ ” ( id.). Based on the record before us, we conclude that petitioner was not aggrieved until after she retired. At that time, she was no longer an “ employee” pursuant to the terms of the CBA, and there was no department head with whom she could file a grievance. Thus, petitioner could not have pursued a grievance before commencing this proceeding.

With respect to the merits of petitioner's claims, we conclude that the MOU gave qualified employees a choice of either participating in the health care plan or opting out of that plan. Although the MOU permitted retirees to participate in the health care plan upon the same terms and conditions as employees, it did not contain a similar opt-out provision for retirees. We reject petitioner's contention that the opt-out provision was a term or condition of the health care plan. The opt-out paragraph specifically states that qualified employees, not retirees, could elect to opt out of the health care plan. Pursuant to the clear and unambiguous terms of the MOU, the opt-out provision was not a term or condition of the health care plan; it was an alternative to it. We therefore conclude that the court erred in determining that the City must provide petitioner with opt-out payments, as well as retroactive payments, in lieu of providing her with health insurance coverage.

We conclude, however, that the court properly determined that, as a retiree, petitioner was entitled to enroll in the health care plan at no cost to her.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is modified on the law by granting that part of respondents' motion seeking to dismiss the petition against respondent City of Niagara Falls insofar as petitioner sought to compel that respondent to permit her to opt out of the health insurance plan and to receive opt-out payments and by vacating the second decretal paragraph and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs.

All concur except CARNI, J., who dissents and votes to reverse the judgment insofar as appealed from in accordance with the following Memorandum:

I respectfully disagree with the conclusions of my colleagues that there were no administrative remedies available to petitioner prior to commencing this CPLR article 78 proceeding and that she was not required to utilize the grievance procedure set forth in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between respondent City of Niagara Falls (City) and the union representing petitioner (union). Inasmuch as petitioner did not exhaust her administrative remedies, I conclude that the petition should be dismissed in its entirety. Therefore, I dissent.

On September 30, 2009, petitioner retired from her employment position with the City. Prior to retiring, petitioner received opt-out payments in lieu of health insurance coverage pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated October 21, 2005 between the City and, inter alia, the union. After she retired, the City denied petitioner's request for either post-employment health insurance coverage or opt-out payments in lieu of such coverage.

It is well established that a petitioner cannot maintain a CPLR article 78 proceeding unless he or she has exhausted the available administrative remedies ( see e.g. Matter of Connor v. Town of Niskayuna, 82 A.D.3d 1329, 1330–1331, 917 N.Y.S.2d 759; Matter of One Niagara LLC v. City of Niagara Falls, 78 A.D.3d 1554, 1556, 910 N.Y.S.2d 820). Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, all disputes pertaining thereto were to be handled through the grievance procedures of the CBA. “ ‘Grievance,’ ” as defined in the CBA, “include[s] all claimed violations of [the CBA], any other signed written agreement between the [u]nion and the City, except where that agreement specifically excludes resort to th[e] grievance procedure [contained therein], and ... all claimed violations ... of the existing written rules, procedures, regulations, administrative orders or work rules of the City, all of which relate to or involve employee health or safety ..., including matters involving ... retirement benefits....” The definition of “grievance” in the CBA does not exclude retirees and is not dependent upon the status of the aggrieved individual ( see Ledain v. Town of Ontario, 192 Misc.2d 247, 252–253, 746 N.Y.S.2d 760, affd. 305 A.D.2d 1094, 759 N.Y.S.2d 426). Thus, the subject matter of grievances in the CBA was clearly intended to include disputes originating from the terms of the CBA concerning health insurance benefits for retirees ( see Matter of Dorme v. Slingerland, 12 Misc.3d 815, 822, 816 N.Y.S.2d 340, affd. 41 A.D.3d 596, 838 N.Y.S.2d 159). Moreover, “grievance” is not narrowly defined as a claim by any employee or group of employees ( cf. Matter of Odessa–Montour Cent. School Dist. [ Odessa–Montour Teachers Assn.], 271 A.D.2d 931, 932, 706 N.Y.S.2d 771). Nor is the definition of “grievance” limited to “ ‘unit members' ” ( Matter of Spink [ Williamson Faculty Assn.], 267 A.D.2d 972, 972, 700 N.Y.S.2d 907).

It is well settled that there is no prohibition against using a CBA's grievance procedure...