Labor & Employment Law

Severance pay and benefits awarded accordance with contract provisions

Severance pay and benefits awarded accordance with contract provisions
Matter of Salvatore J. LaLima v County of Suffolk, 45 A.D.3d 845, Appellate Division, Second Department

When Salvatore J. LaLima retired from his position as President of Suffolk County Community College, the County refused his request for the payment of retirement severance benefits of some $98,920.90. LaLima sued and won a court order directing the County to pay him the $98,920.90 he claimed was due him and to report to the New York State Retirement System that LaLima?s annual salary upon retirement was $170,000 per year.

The County appealed, alleging that the Board?s vote raising LaLima?s salary to $170,000 per year was unauthorized and that LaLima was only entitled to a retirement severance of $64,215.10 [the balance of an annual salary of $160,024.02 plus reimbursement for benefits].

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court?s granting LaLima?s and directed the County to pay to him $98,920.90, representing the balance of his annual $170,000 salary and reimbursement for benefits, and to report to the New York State Retirement System that LaLima?s salary at retirement was $170,000 per year.

In so doing, the court rejected the County?s argument that [1] the Board?s vote to raise the college president?s salary to $170,000 per year and to reimburse him for unused sick time was unauthorized under Laws of Suffolk County, Chapter 750, Article 1 (Management Salary Plan) § 750-6.2 and [2] the Board?s vote for the raise was not properly noticed, that the Board?s vote was unlawfully taken in executive session, and that verbatim minutes were not taken at the meeting.

The Appellate Division agreed with the Supreme Court?s holding that the Board was authorized by the §6306[2] of the Education Law and regulations promulgated thereunder (see 8 NYCRR 604.2[a) to vote to raise LaLima?s salary to $170,000 per year pursuant to his employment contract and that the County?s Management Salary Plan, which provided for a 3.5% raise for the period in question, ?did not supersede either state law or the regulations promulgated thereunder,? citing Turnpike Woods v Town of Stony Point, 70 NY2d 735, in support of its ruling.

In addition, the Appellate Division held that LaLima was entitled to be reimbursed for unused sick leave ?because the Board lawfully contracted to grant him sick leave (see Education Law §6306 [2]; 8 NYCRR §604.2 [a])?

Also dismissed were the County?s alternative arguments challenging the Board?s action as ?procedurally improper.? The court said that is no support in the record for the claim that the meeting was not properly noticed as to time and place [see Public Officers Law §104(1)] nor is there any statutory requirement that notice of the agenda of the meeting be given.

As to the County?s claim that the Board?s actions were defective on the theory that its vote ?was unauthorized because verbatim minutes of the meeting were not taken,? the Appellate Division noted that ?Public Officers Law §106 merely requires that a record or summary of the action at a meeting be taken, and the record discloses that a summary of the action was taken? was made.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on May 14, 2008 (boomark / email).