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: Sergeants Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. The City of New York, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan Paulson of counsel), for The City of New York, New York City Police Department and The City of New York Office of Labor Relations, respondents.
Philip L. Maier, New York (Karine Spencer and Michael T. Fois of counsel), for The New York City Board of Collective Bargaining and Marlene Gold, respondents.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered December 9, 2013, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the decision of respondent New York City Board of Collective Bargaining, dismissing an improper practice petition alleging that respondents City of New York and New York City Police Department violated the New York City Collective Bargaining Law by unilaterally implementing a policy requiring alcohol testing for police officers when their discharge of a firearm results in injury or death, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly found that the Board of Collective Bargaining acted rationally in dismissing the improper practice petition. The Board correctly concluded that unilateral implementation of the alcohol testing program fell within the Police Commissioner's disciplinary authority and thus did not relate to a mandatory subject of collective bargaining (see Matter of City of New York v Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y., Inc., 14 NY3d 46, 58–59 [2009] ).
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 1497 4
Decided: April 30, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)