LaSonde v. Seabrook

• Decision Date: 03 November 2011
• Citation: 89 A.D.3d 132,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07741,933 N.Y.S.2d 195
• Parties: In re Chandra LaSONDE, et al., Petitioners–Respondents, v. Norman SEABROOK, etc., et al., Respondents–Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07741
89 A.D.3d 132
933 N.Y.S.2d 195

In re Chandra LaSONDE, et al., Petitioners–Respondents,
v.
Norman SEABROOK, etc., et al., Respondents–Appellants.

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

Nov. 3, 2011.

[933 N.Y.S.2d 196]

Koehler & Isaacs LLP, New York (Howard G. Wien of counsel), for appellants.

Carter & Associate Attorney, PLLC, New York (Damond J. Carter of counsel), for respondents.

[933 N.Y.S.2d 197]

DAVID B. SAXE, J.P., DAVID FRIEDMAN, ROLANDO T. ACOSTA, LELAND G. DeGRASSE, SHEILA ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ.

ACOSTA, J.

[89 A.D.3d 134] Petitioners are members of Correction Officers' Benevolent Association (COBA), a labor union and not-for-profit corporation with over 8,000 members, all of whom are correction officers employed by the City of New York. Respondents are COBA as well as COBA's President, Norman Seabrook, and its Recording Secretary, Karen Belfield. At issue in this case is whether respondents are obligated under COBA's constitution and bylaws to call a special meeting at which petitioners can present charges of malfeasance and misconduct against COBA's entire Executive Board (including respondents Norman Seabrook and Karen Belfield) in accordance with Article IX, Section 1 of COBA's constitution.

Background

Between July 1, 2006 and November 20, 2009, petitioner LaSonde was COBA's financial secretary. Between October 2007 and the week of July 6, 2009, she also served as administrator of two union-sponsored employee benefit trust funds. On or about November 20, 2009, LaSonde and co-executive board member Allen Blake were accused by Seabrook of having committed insurance fraud by improperly submitting a claim for death benefits for Blake's former wife. After being confronted by Seabrook regarding the fraud allegations, LaSonde and Blake resigned from their executive positions with COBA.¹ One week [89 A.D.3d 135] later, LaSonde sought to rescind her resignation, but that request was denied.²

By letter to Belfield dated December 21, 2009, LaSonde charged Seabrook with misconduct and demanded a special meeting be scheduled to resolve the charges. ³ Belfield responded to LaSonde's letter on December 28, 2009, informing LaSonde that the charges would not be processed due to technical defects in how they were filed. In a letter to Belfield dated January 5, 2010, LaSonde set forth additional charges against Seabrook.⁴ By letter dated January 12, 2010, Belfield informed LaSonde that the charges in her January 5, 2010 letter would not be processed because she had not asserted violations of COBA's constitution and bylaws. On January 12, 2010, LaSonde wrote a third time to Belfield in order to resubmit the charges that she had set forth against Seabrook in her December 21, 2009 letter. By letter dated January 21, 2010, LaSonde filed charges against Belfield for misconduct in connection with her failure to serve and process the charges she made against Seabrook.⁵

[933 N.Y.S.2d 198]

On January 22, 2010, Belfield advised LaSonde that the charges regarding Seabrook in the January 12, 2010 letter would not be processed because she failed to allege violations of COBA's constitution and bylaws.

On February 1, 2010, Blake and LaSonde commenced a federal lawsuit against Seabrook, COBA and others, which included various federal and state claims alleging, inter alia, that Seabrook violated COBA's duty of fair representation by asserting false allegations of insurance fraud, coercing Blake and LaSonde to resign, falsely imprisoning them in COBA's office, denying their request for a special hearing to determine the merits of the allegations of fraud, and inducing the City Department of Investigation to retaliate against Blake and LaSonde. In late July 2010, the court dismissed all of the [89 A.D.3d 136] federal claims with prejudice and all of the state law claims without prejudice ( see LaSonde v. Correction Officers' Benevolent Assoc., 2010 WL 3034246, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78698 [S.D.N.Y.2010] ).

By letter dated August 17, 2010, LaSonde filed additional charges with Belfield, alleging that various members of COBA's Executive Board (including Seabrook and Belfield) had committed numerous acts of misconduct.⁶ LaSonde specifically requested a special meeting to resolve the charges. In a September 24, 2010 letter to Belfield, LaSonde added more charges against the various board members and once again requested a special meeting.⁷ Finally, by letter to Belfield dated October 13, 2010, LaSonde resubmitted the August 17 and September 24, 2010 charges and requested a special meeting. In her response, dated March 10, 2011, Belfield unequivocally stated that the charges contained in LaSonde's October 13, August 17 and September 24, 2010 letters would not be presented to a special meeting.

On November 8, 2010, petitioners commenced this proceeding for an order directing respondents to schedule a special meeting to consider the charges brought against Seabrook. On December 29, 2010, respondents filed a motion to dismiss asserting, inter alia, that (1) the petition failed to state a cause of action because COBA was not required to call a special meeting to consider the charges raised by LaSonde; (2) the petition was barred by the applicable statute of limitations; and (3) dismissal of the federal civil lawsuit barred this petition. On March 11, 2011, COBA filed a verified answer.

As a threshold matter, Supreme Court determined that this proceeding was not barred by the dismissal of LaSonde's federal civil suit. As for the statute of limitations argument, the court found that the responses written before August 17, 2010 lacked the clarity of an actual determination required for the statute of limitations to start running. The court further found that COBA's constitution and bylaws mandated that a special meeting [89 A.D.3d 137] be called promptly to resolve charges made against

[933 N.Y.S.2d 199]

an executive board member. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to dismiss, granted the petition, and directed COBA's executive board to promptly call a special meeting to resolve the charges. This appeal followed.

Analysis

It is well established that “[a] union's constitution and by-laws constitute a contract between the union and its members and define not only their relationship but also the privileges secured and the duties assumed by those who become members, unless contrary to public policy” ( Ballas v. McKiernan, 41 A.D.2d 131, 133, 341 N.Y.S.2d 520 [1973], affd. 35 N.Y.2d 14, 358 N.Y.S.2d 695, 315 N.E.2d 758 [1974] ). A union that is a not-for-profit corporation—such as COBA ⁸—is a quasi-governmental body for the purpose of ensuring that such an entity acts in accordance with its rules and regulations ( see Simoni v. Civil Serv. Empl. Assn., 133 Misc.2d 1, 9, 507 N.Y.S.2d 371 [Sup. Ct. Albany County, 1986] [“The law has long been settled that once a union decides to incorporate it is subject to New York State's statutes controlling corporate...