Prull v. Town of Canandaigua, 121290-2018

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New York)
• Writing for the Court: Schiano, Jr., J.
• Citation: 69 Misc.3d 577,130 N.Y.S.3d 625
• Decision Date: 03 September 2020
• Docket Number: 121290-2018
• Parties: Hon. David W. PRULL, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. The TOWN OF CANANDAIGUA and Canandaigua Town Board, Defendants-Respondents.

69 Misc.3d 577
130 N.Y.S.3d 625

Hon. David W. PRULL, Plaintiff-Petitioner,
v.
The TOWN OF CANANDAIGUA and Canandaigua Town Board, Defendants-Respondents.

121290-2018

Supreme Court, New York, Ontario County.

Decided September 3, 2020

130 N.Y.S.3d 626

For the Plaintiff-Petitioner: Charles D. Steinman, Esq., 36 W. Main Street, Suite 101, Rochester, New York 14614

For the Defendants-Respondents: Christian M. Nadler, Esq., 9 Mima Circle, Fairport, NY 14450

DECISION

Schiano, Jr., J.

69 Misc.3d 578

Plaintiff-Petitioner (hereafter "Plaintiff") filed this hybrid Article 78 proceeding / Declaratory Judgment action on February 3, 2020 by an Amended Verified Complaint. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendant-Respondent Canandaigua Town Board's (the "Town Board") Resolution No. 2017-176 (the "Resolution") is in violation of New York Town Law Section 27 ; and that, the Town Board's determination to pay the two Town of Canandaigua Town

130 N.Y.S.3d 627

Justices unequal salaries violates New York Law and was arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiff seeks an order: vacating and annulling the Resolution; directing Defendants-Respondents to

69 Misc.3d 579

compensate him in an amount equal to that of the other Town Justice, including the value of any fringe benefits, and awarding retroactive salary from January 1, 2018.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212, having filed a notice of motion concurrent with the filing of the Amended Verified Complaint on February 3, 2020. Plaintiff contends there are no material issues in dispute. Defendants-Respondents filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on June 26, 2020. The Court heard oral argument on August 31, 2020 and now decides the parties' motions as follows.

It is well settled that "the proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact" ( Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp. , 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 [1986] [citations omitted]; see also Potter v. Zimber , 309 A.D.2d 1276, 764 N.Y.S.2d 736 [4th Dept. 2003] ). "Once this showing has been made, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact that require a trial for resolution" ( Giuffrida v. Citibank Corp. , 100 N.Y.2d 72, 81, 760 N.Y.S.2d 397, 790 N.E.2d 772 [2003] [citing Alvarez , 68 N.Y.2d at 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ] ). "Failure to make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the responsive papers" ( Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr. , 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 [1985] [citations omitted]; see also Hull v. City of N. Tonawanda , 6 A.D.3d 1142, 1142-43, 775 N.Y.S.2d 656 [4th Dept. 2004] ). When deciding a summary judgment motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (See Russo v. YMCA of Greater Buffalo , 12 A.D.3d 1089, 784 N.Y.S.2d 782 [4th Dept. 2004] ). The court's duty is to determine whether an issue of fact exists, not to resolve it (see Barr v. County of Albany , 50 N.Y.2d 247, 428 N.Y.S.2d 665, 406 N.E.2d 481 [1980] ; Daliendo v. Johnson , 147 A.D.2d 312, 317, 543 N.Y.S.2d 987 [2d Dept. 1989] ).

The basic facts here are not in dispute. Justice Prull is one of two part-time Town of Canandaigua Town Justices and has served in this capacity for several terms. Prior to his present term, the Town of Canandaigua provided a health insurance benefit in addition to his pay. The two justices serve staggered terms. At the time that the Town Board passed the Resolution, Justice Prull had seven and one-half months left of his four year term which commenced on January 1, 2014 and would end on December 31, 2017. The other Town Justice, Hon. Walter W. Jones, Jr., was serving a term which began on January 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2019.

69 Misc.3d 580

Justice Prull was re-elected and began his new term on January 1, 2018. Prior to his election, the Board passed the Resolution on May 15, 2017. Plaintiff provides a copy of the Resolution in support of his motion. The Resolution provides in part that the Town Board finds the Town Justice positions are not full time and the Town Board does not want to continue to offer medical insurance coverage for these positions. Further, the Resolution provides that Medical Insurance Coverage is not provided for any part-time elected offices per section 806 of the Town of Canandaigua Employee Handbook. Additionally, the Resolution reads:

130 N.Y.S.3d 628

Whereas , the Town Board is aware that it may not modify the compensation provided to a sitting town justice during a term of offices and that any compensation change needs to begin prior to the commencement date of a new term of office; and

Whereas , the Town Board shall treat each town justice position equally upon each respective new term of office; and

Whereas , the temporary differential that may result as a result of the staggered terms of the two town justice positions is not material and the only feasible means to address the compensation changes sought by the Town Board; and

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby eliminates Medical Insurance Coverage for both town justice positions commencing upon each new

...