IN RE: TODD WALDIN et al. (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Calendar Date:  September 16, 2026

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Denise Hartman, J.), entered May 27, 2025 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners' application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioners' request for a 7.01% annual salary increase.

Petitioners are employed by respondent as its chief and assistant chief of police.  The police officers serving under them are unionized, and the terms and conditions of the officers' employment are presently governed by a memorandum of agreement (hereinafter MOA) that continued the terms of a prior collective bargaining agreement, with certain modifications, from January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2027.  The modifications included a 4% increase in the annual salary of the animal control officer – who is not a sworn police officer but is in the same bargaining unit as the officers – effective January 1, 2025.  Police officers were not given a percentage increase in their annual base wage for 2025, but the MOA provided for a negotiated restructuring of the underlying salary chart for officers which modified their base wages as of January 1, 2025.  The largest increase stemming from that restructuring involved officers redesignated from a lower rank to the newly created rank of “Job Rate,” whose new base wage amounted to a 7.01% increase from their prior one.

Although petitioners are not members of the union representing police officers, they are entitled to “annual salary increases” that are no “less than the highest percentage that may be negotiated for any category of employee” in the bargaining unit (Code of the City of Cohoes § 56–29[E] ).  After learning that they would receive the 4% annual increase in base wages negotiated for the animal control officer rather than the 7.01% increase certain officers received under the restructured salary chart, petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to, among other things, compel respondent to increase their salaries by 7.01% effective January 1, 2025.  Supreme Court, following joinder of issue, dismissed the petition.  Petitioners appeal.

We affirm.  Our goal in matters of statutory interpretation is to effectuate legislative intent and, “[a]s the clearest indicator of legislative intent is the statutory text, the starting point in any case of interpretation must always be the language itself, giving effect to the plain meaning thereof” (Majewski v Broadalbin–Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 N.Y.2d 577, 583 [1998];  see People v. N.H., _ NY3d _, _, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 02437, *4 [2026];  Matter of Koldin v. City of Schenectady, 244 AD3d 1340, 1343 [3d Dept 2025] ).  Here, Code of the City of Cohoes § 56–29(E) directs that petitioners receive “annual salary increases” that are at least equal to “the highest percentage that may be negotiated for any category of employee” represented by the union representing police officers (emphasis added).  The plain meaning of that language requires that petitioners' raises match the highest negotiated “annual” percentage increase in salary, which, by definition, “occur[ ] or happen[ ] every year or once a year” (Merriam–Webster.com Dictionary, annual [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annual] ).  The only individual who received such a negotiated percentage increase in 2025 was the animal control officer, who was granted a 4% increase in the prior year's base wage.  No police officer received such an increase in 2025;  rather, the base wages of the officers were altered in varying degrees due to a one-time restructuring of the salary chart.¹  Where an enactment “describes the particular situations in which it is to apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded,” and we therefore agree with Supreme Court that Code of the City of Cohoes § 56–29(E) only entitled petitioners to 4% raises in 2025 that were equal to the highest negotiated annual percentage increase in salary (Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y. v City of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 205, 208–209 [1976] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ).  Thus, as petitioners failed to establish a clear legal right to a higher raise and offered no reason to find that the 4% raise each received was otherwise illegal or irrational, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition (see Matter of Whitted v. City of Newburgh, 126 AD3d 910, 911 [2d Dept 2015];  Matter of Mitchell v Essex County Sheriff's Dept., 302 A.D.2d 732, 734 [3d Dept 2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 506 [2003] ).  To the extent that they are not addressed by the foregoing, petitioners' remaining arguments have been considered and lack merit.

Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.P., Fisher, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The MOA did provide for police officers to receive an annual percentage increase of 4% in their base wages – as set forth on the restructured salary chart that took effect in 2025 – in both 2026 and 2027.

Corcoran, J.