Hohenberger v. Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist.

• Citation: 58 Misc.3d 6,66 N.Y.S.3d 89
• Parties: Cathy A. HOHENBERGER, Respondent, v. SMITHTOWN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 26 October 2017
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

58 Misc.3d 6
66 N.Y.S.3d 89

Cathy A. HOHENBERGER, Respondent,
v.
SMITHTOWN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9 and 10 Judicial Dist.

Oct. 26, 2017.

66 N.Y.S.3d 90

Lamb & Barnosky, LLP (Matthew J. Mehnert, Esq.).

Cathy A. Hohenberger, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

PRESENT: JERRY GARGUILO, J.P., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Vincent J. Martorana, J.), entered August 11, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,107.75.

58 Misc.3d 7

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who had previously been employed by defendant school district as a school bus driver, commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $3,107.75, constituting payment in lieu of unused sick days which plaintiff had accrued at the time she had been laid off from her employment. It was undisputed

66 N.Y.S.3d 91

that, under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that had been negotiated between defendant and the Smithtown Schools Employees Association (SSEA), if plaintiff had resigned or retired, she would have been entitled to $3,107.75, premised on her accrual of unused sick days at the time her employment terminated.

At a nonjury trial, plaintiff testified that, prior to the termination of her employment, defendant's employees had represented to her that, upon the abolition of her position, she would receive separation pay for any unused accumulated sick leave, but that, following the termination of her employment, plaintiff had been informed that such payment would be contingent upon her signing a memorandum of agreement confirming that she had resigned and had forfeited all rights to unemployment benefits and all rights to sue. Plaintiff declined to sign that memorandum. Defendant argued that only the SSEA could enforce rights under the CBA. It further contended that, because plaintiff had been laid off when her position had been eliminated, the termination of her employment did not fit within the categories of "resignation" or "retirement," and, thus, that plaintiff had no right under the CBA to separation pay based on her unused accumulated sick leave. Following

58 Misc.3d 8

the trial, the District Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,107.75.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has ... been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" ( UDCA 1807 ; see UDCA 1804 ; Ross v. Friedman, 269 A.D.2d 584, 707 N.Y.S.2d 114 [2000] ; Williams v. Roper, 269 A.D.2d 125, 126, 703 N.Y.S.2d 77 [2000] ). Furthermore, the determination...