Diegelman v. City of Buffalo

Citation43 N.Y.S.3d 803,28 N.Y.3d 231,66 N.E.3d 673,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07817
Parties In the Matter of James R. DIEGELMAN et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF BUFFALO et al., Respondents.
Decision Date21 November 2016
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP, Buffalo (John A. Collins of counsel), for appellants.

Timothy A. Ball, Corporation Counsel, Buffalo (David M. Lee of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

STEIN, J.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether a police officer who is entitled to receive benefits under General Municipal Law § 207–c for a duty-related injury is barred from bringing a claim against his or her employer under General Municipal Law § 205–e. We conclude that, where the municipal employer has elected not to provide coverage pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Law, a police officer who suffers a line-of-duty injury caused by the employer's statutory or regulatory violations may pursue a section 205–e claim.

I.

Respondent City of Buffalo (the City) employed claimant James R. Diegelman as a police officer from 1968 until 1995. On August 9, 2012, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma

, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. Claimant and his wife, Andrea M. Diegelman (hereinafter claimants), allege that exposure to asbestos occurred during his employment at properties owned by the City and respondent Board of Education, and used by the Police Department. Claimants commenced this proceeding seeking permission to serve a late notice of claim on the City. In opposition, the City argued, among other things, that leave should be denied on the ground that the claim was patently without merit because General Municipal Law § 207–c provides the exclusive remedy for the alleged work-related injuries.

Supreme Court granted claimants' application for permission to serve a late notice of claim on the City. The City appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed on the law and denied the application (129 A.D.3d 1527, 11 N.Y.S.3d 762 [4th Dept.2015] ). The Appellate Division agreed with the City that the claim was barred by General Municipal Law § 207–c and, thus, held that claimants' application should be denied because "leave to file a late notice of claim is not appropriate for a patently meritless claim" (129 A.D.3d at 1527, 11 N.Y.S.3d 762 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ). This Court granted claimants' motion for leave to appeal (26 N.Y.3d 913, 2015 WL 8691713 [2015] ).

II.

This appeal turns on the interplay of General Municipal Law §§ 205–e and 207–c, and the Workers' Compensation Law. "In addition to any other right of action or recovery under any other provision of law," section 205–e permits police officers to bring tort claims for injuries sustained "while in the discharge or performance at any time or place of any duty imposed by ... superior officer[s]" where such injuries occur "directly or indirectly as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence of any person or persons in failing to comply with the requirements of any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments" (General Municipal Law § 205–e [1 ] ). Separately, section 207–c"provides for the payment of the full amount of regular salary or wages," along with payment for medical treatment and hospital care, "to a police officer or other covered municipal employee who is injured ‘in the performance of his [or her] duties' or is taken ill ‘as a result of the performance of [such] duties' " (Matter of Theroux v. Reilly, 1 N.Y.3d 232, 239, 771 N.Y.S.2d 43, 803 N.E.2d 364 [2003], quoting General Municipal Law § 207–c [1 ] ). The Workers' Compensation Law is, of course, " the State's most general and comprehensive social program, enacted to provide all injured employees with some scheduled compensation and medical expenses, regardless of fault for ordinary and unqualified employment duties' " (Theroux, 1 N.Y.3d at 242, 771 N.Y.S.2d 43, 803 N.E.2d 364, quoting Matter of Balcerak v. County of Nassau, 94 N.Y.2d 253, 259, 701 N.Y.S.2d 700, 723 N.E.2d 555 [1999] ; accord. Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership, 22 N.Y.3d 246, 255–256, 980 N.Y.S.2d 345, 3 N.E.3d 682 [2013] ).

It is well settled that workers' compensation benefits are generally the "sole and exclusive remedy of an employee against his [or her] employer for injuries in the course of employment," and that the receipt of such benefits "precludes suits against an employer for injuries in the course of employment" (Weiner v. City of New York, 19 N.Y.3d 852, 854, 947 N.Y.S.2d 404, 970 N.E.2d 427 [2012] ).

Thus, the right of action contained in section 205–e is subject to a proviso that "nothing in th[at] section shall be deemed to expand or restrict any right afforded to or limitation imposed upon an employer, an employee or his or her representative by virtue of any provisions of the workers' compensation law" (General Municipal Law § 205–e [1 ] ). In other words, the proviso prohibits "recipients of workers' compensation benefits [from] su[ing] their employers in tort under section 205–[e]" (Weiner, 19 N.Y.3d at 855, 947 N.Y.S.2d 404, 970 N.E.2d 427 ).

Inasmuch as the City of Buffalo, like many other large municipalities, has elected not to provide workers' compensation benefits to its police officers (see generally Matter of Leone v. Oneida County Sheriff's Dept., 80 N.Y.2d 850, 851, 587 N.Y.S.2d 591, 600 N.E.2d 222 [1992] ), claimants argue that the proviso in section 205–e (1) is inapplicable to this action. They maintain that the Appellate Division erred in extending the proviso's bar on suits to cover not just recipients of workers' compensation benefits but, also, recipients of General Municipal Law § 207–c benefits. The City responds that section 207–c"is essentially a super workers' compensation scheme for police officers" and, thus, workers' compensation exclusivity rules should apply to police officers who receive section 207–c benefits, regardless of whether they are entitled to benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law.

Workers' Compensation Law § 30(3) provides that "any salary or wages paid ..., or the cost of any medical treatment or hospital care provided [,] ... under and pursuant to the provisions of section [207–c] shall be credited against any award of [workers'] compensation." As this Court has previously recognized, the purpose of Workers' Compensation Law § 30(3) is to "avoid duplication of benefits" inasmuch as there is some overlap between workers' compensation benefits and section 207–c benefits (Leone, 80 N.Y.2d at 852, 587 N.Y.S.2d 591, 600 N.E.2d 222 ).1 However, workers' compensation benefits and General Municipal Law § 207–cbenefits are neither equivalent nor "mutually exclusive" such that the payments of benefits under one statute forecloses payment under the other statute (Matter of McKay v. Town of W. Seneca, 51 A.D.2d 373, 378, 381 N.Y.S.2d 892 [3d Dept.1976, Mahoney, J., dissenting], rev'd on dissenting op. of Mahoney, J., 41 N.Y.2d 931, 394 N.Y.S.2d 637, 363 N.E.2d 361 [1977] ; see Leone, 80 N.Y.2d at 851–852, 587 N.Y.S.2d 591, 600 N.E.2d 222 ). Rather, the two statutory compensation systems are independent of each other and, contrary to the City's argument that section 207–c is essentially a super workers' compensation scheme, the Workers' Compensation Law "features a more lenient and more inclusive standard of covered activity than is intended to be covered and compensated in a General Municipal Law § 207–c benefits universe" (Balcerak, 94 N.Y.2d at 261, 701 N.Y.S.2d 700, 723 N.E.2d 555 ).

In enacting the two statutes, "the Legislature chose different eligibility standards —‘arising out of and in the course of employment’ for workers' compensation benefits; ‘in the performance of his [or her] duties' for section 207–c benefits" (Theroux, 1 N.Y.3d at 242, 771 N.Y.S.2d 43, 803 N.E.2d 364 ). Pursuant to those differing standards, "police ... officers may be eligible for Workers' Compensation benefits as a result of circumstances that might not entitle them to General Municipal Law § 207–c benefits" (Balcerak, 94 N.Y.2d at 260, 701 N.Y.S.2d 700, 723 N.E.2d 555 ). Specifically, "[w]orkers' compensation benefits are intended to be dispensed regardless of fault, for any injury arising out of and in the course of one's employment ... [,] [while] [s]ection 207–c benefits ... are more expansive, but apply to a narrower class of work-related injury, relative to the performance of law enforcement duties" (Auqui, 22 N.Y.3d at 256, 980 N.Y.S.2d 345, 3 N.E.3d 682 ). Moreover, separate bodies are charged with determining entitlement to benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law and General Municipal Law § 207–c, in proceedings involving "significantly distinct" burdens and procedures (id. at 256–257, 980 N.Y.S.2d 345, 3 N.E.3d 682 ; accord. Balcerak, 94 N.Y.2d at 261, 701 N.Y.S.2d 700, 723 N.E.2d 555 ). Indeed, we have repeatedly explained that, because "the issue involving the entitlement to benefits in the General Municipal Law setting is not ... the same one decided in a Workers' Compensation determination" (Balcerak, 94 N.Y.2d at 261, 701 N.Y.S.2d 700, 723 N.E.2d 555 ), a finding by the Workers' Compensation Board that an injury is work-related cannot be given collateral estoppel effect against a municipality that denies an application for section 207–c benefits (see Auqui, 22 N.Y.3d at 256–257, 980 N.Y.S.2d 345, 3 N.E.3d 682 ; Theroux, 1 N.Y.3d at 242, 771 N.Y.S.2d 43, 803 N.E.2d 364 ; Balcerak, 94 N.Y.2d at 256–257, 701 N.Y.S.2d 700, 723 N.E.2d 555 ).

Therefore, we reject the City's argument, also adopted by the dissent, that General Municipal Law § 207–c benefits can be equated to workers' compensation benefits for purposes of interpreting the proviso contained in General Municipal Law § 205–e.2 The language of section 205–e prohibits only recipients of workers' compensation benefits from commencing suit against their employers; it does...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Alvarez v. Annucci
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 2022
    ...678, 80 N.E.3d 370 [2017] [rejecting an additional exception not included in the text of a statute]; Diegelman v. City of Buffalo, 28 N.Y.3d 231, 237, 43 N.Y.S.3d 803, 66 N.E.3d 673 [2016] [refusing to read into a statute an exception the legislature did not include in the text of the law];......
  • Alvarez v. Annucci
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 2022
    ......March 22, 2022 Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Jan Hoth of counsel), for appellant. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Blair J. ....3d 370 [2017] [rejecting an additional exception not included in the text of a statute]; Diegelman v. City of Buffalo, 28 N.Y.3d 231, 237, 43 N.Y.S.3d 803, 66 N.E.3d 673 [2016] [refusing to read ......
  • Makhani v. Kiesel
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 17, 2022
    ...that its exclusion was intended" (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 74, at 157; see Matter of Diegelman v. City of Buffalo, 28 N.Y.3d 231, 237, 43 N.Y.S.3d 803, 66 N.E.3d 673 [2016] ; People v. Tychanski, 78 N.Y.2d 909, 911–912, 573 N.Y.S.2d 454, 577 N.E.2d 1046 [1991] ; Pajak ......
  • Smith v. City of Norwich
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 7, 2022
    ...of Theroux v. Reilly, 1 N.Y.3d at 240, 771 N.Y.S.2d 43, 803 N.E.2d 364 ; accord 205 A.D.3d 145 Matter of Diegelman v. City of Buffalo, 28 N.Y.3d 231, 237, 43 N.Y.S.3d 803, 66 N.E.3d 673 [2016] ; see McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 363, Comment at 525 ["a court cannot amend a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT