Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Application of Louis MATARAZZO, as President of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, For a Judgment, etc., v. Howard SAFIR, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered January 8, 1998, which, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding by petitioners police officers against respondent Police Department alleging wrongful deprivation of meal breaks as punishment for failure to meet a ticket writing quota, and seeking compensation for lost meal time and a cease and desist order, granted respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The proceeding should be dismissed for failure to allege the existence of a quota, as defined in Labor Law § 215-a(2), there being no indication of how many tickets petitioners had to write within what period of time. Giving the petition every favorable intendment, all that appears is that two supervising officers from two different precincts directed the individual petitioners to perform duties, during their meal breaks, that were likely to result in the issuance of tickets. This fails to support an inference that petitioners were punished for failure to meet a quota for issuing tickets in violation of Labor Law § 215-a. We note respondents' abandonment on appeal of its argument that the proceeding is time-barred, and our disagreement with respondents that the parties' collective bargaining agreement made impartial arbitration a remedy that petitioners were required to exhaust (compare, Carter v. Department of Correction, 92 A.D.2d 465, 459 N.Y.S.2d 5, affd. 62 N.Y.2d 670, 476 N.Y.S.2d 290, 464 N.E.2d 988).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 06, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)