Patrolmen's Benev. Ass'n of City of Buffalo v. City of Buffalo

Decision Date12 December 1975
Citation376 N.Y.S.2d 291,50 A.D.2d 101
PartiesApplication of PATROLMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF the CITY OF BUFFALO, and Kevin Harmon, on behalf of himself and all other Patrolmen employed by the Police Department of the City of Buffalo similarly situated, Respondents, v. The CITY OF BUFFALO, and Thomas R. Blair, as Police Commissioner of the City of Buffalo, Appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Leslie G. Foschio, Corp. Counsel, Buffalo, for appellants (James McLoughlin, Buffalo, of counsel).

Sargent 3 Lippes, Buffalo, for respondents (Nicholas Sargent, Buffalo, of counsel).

Before MARSH, P.J., and MOULE, CARDAMONE, GOLDMAN and WITMER, JJ.

MOULE, Justice.

The sole question presented on this appeal is whether section 971 of the Unconsolidated Laws of New York prohibits the establishment of a four platoon system within the City of Buffalo Police Department.

Appellants are the City of Buffalo and the Police Commissioner. Respondents include the Buffalo Patrolmen's Benevolent Association and its president who brought the original proceeding as a class action on behalf of himself and all other Buffalo patrolmen.

The facts of this case are neither complicated nor in dispute. In 1911 the State Legislature enacted section 971 of the Unconsolidated Laws entitled 'An act to promote the health and efficiency of policemen in certain cities, counties, towns and villages of the state.' That section, as most recently amended by L.1970, c. 788, provides in part as follows:

'Within thirty days after this act takes effect, the commissioner of police, superintendent of police, chief of police, or other officer or officers, having the management, control or direction of the police force of any city of the first or second class in this state, (except the City of New York Police Department) or of the uniformed transit police force of the New York City Transit Authority, shall divide the lieutenants, sergeants and patrolmen of such force (but not including the detective sergeants) who may be on duty in the open air, on the streets, in or about transit facilities, or other public places of the city, into three platoons. No one of such platoons nor any member thereof shall be assigned to more than one tour of duty; such tour of duty shall not exceed eight consecutive hours of each consecutive twenty-four hours and no platoon or member thereof shall be assigned to more than forty hours of duty during any seven consecutive day period, excepting only that in the event of strikes, riots, conflagrations, or occasions when large crowds shall assemble, or other similar emergency, or on a day on which an election authorized by law shall be held, or for the purpose of changing tours of duty, so many of said platoons, or of the members thereof, may be continued on duty for such hours as may be necessary.'

Pursuant to this directive, the City of Buffalo has provided 24-hour police protection by dividing its uniformed force into three platoons. The first platoon is on duty between 8:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., the second between 4:00 P.M. and midnight, and the third between midnight and 8:00 A.M.

On January 20, 1975 appellant-commissioner announced the creation of a fourth platoon which, effective January 26, 1975 would be on duty between the hours of 6:00 P.M. and 2:00 A.M. The rationale for this decision developed as a result of a recent analysis of Buffalo crime figures which indicated that the peak crime period in the city begins in the early evening and continues until shortly after midnight. In order to provide effective police protection during these hours under the three platoon system additional patrolmen would have to be assigned to both the second and third platoons. This approach, however, due to the duty hours of the second and third platoons would result in extraneous police protection before and after the critical crime period, specifically from 4:00 P.M. until 6:00 P.M. and from 2:00 A.M. until 8:00 A.M. Thus, a fourth platoon, by overlapping its tour of duty with those of the second and third platoons, would double the amount of police protection during the period of high crime incidence while maintaining economy in the allocation of the force.

On January 23, 1975 three days prior to the effective date of the fourth platoon, respondents, by an order to show cause, sought to enjoin its creation on the ground that it was prohibited by ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Patrolmen's Benev. Ass'n of City of New York v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 22, 1976
    ...statute so as to encompass such increases (see New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Stecker, supra; Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of Buffalo v. City of Buffalo, 50 A.D.2d 101, 376 N.Y.S.2d 291). Hence, where as here the statute describes the particular situations in which it is to app......
  • Viruet v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1999
    ...broaden the scope and application of a statute (New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Stecker, supra; Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of Buffalo v. City of Buffalo, 50 A.D.2d 101, 376 N.Y.S.2d 291) and must apply the plain import of the statute. (Matter of Trustees of N.Y. & Brooklyn Bri......
  • Nearpass v. Seneca Cnty. Indus. Dev. Agency
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • August 18, 2016
    ...were not otherwise included in the definition of “project”.Respondents urge the court to follow Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v. Buffalo, 50 A.D.2d 101, 104, 376 N.Y.S.2d 291 (4th Dept.1975) [holding that the statute at issue was “clear and precise in its directive”]. Respondents argue that ......
  • Laudico v. Netzel
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 2, 1998
    ...200, 386 N.Y.S.2d 366, 352 N.E.2d 552, citing McCluskey v. Cromwell, 11 N.Y. 593, 601; Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of Buffalo v. City of Buffalo, 50 A.D.2d 101, 104, 376 N.Y.S.2d 291). Respondents acknowledge that they sought to amend General Municipal Law § 207-c because......
  • 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