Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Labor & Employment Law
: New York Public Personnel LawWrit of mandamus granted compelling employer to pay retiree for accrued vacation credits
Matter of Sabatino v Suffolk County, 2010 NY Slip Op 04797, Decided on June 1, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department
From July 3, 1984, until December 31, 2003, Paul Sabatino II served as Counsel to the Suffolk County Legislature. He retired as Chief Deputy Suffolk County Executive, after 30 years of service to Suffolk County in various positions as a "managerial exempt employee."
Upon his retirement Suffolk County paid Sabatino for accrued vacation in the amount of 630 hours. Sabatino, however, contended that he was entitled to be paid for an additional 444 hours of accrued vacation time,* or a total of 1074 hours of credit.
Sabatino argued that the additional 444 hours of accrued vacation credit was due him, having been "previously approved" by Suffolk County Resolution No. 659 on January 1, 1989. When the County declined to pay him for these additional 444 hours of vacation credit, Sabatino filed a petition in the nature of mandamus** seeking a court order compelling the County to pay him the additional amount he claimed was due him.
Supreme Court granted Sabatino?s petition; the Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court?s action.
The Appellate Division said that Suffolk County Resolution No. 659 was subsequently enacted as Suffolk County Administrative Code §631-1(C). It provides that "Upon separation from County service by retirement, ? an exempt employee shall be granted payment by the County for unused vacation time for all unused vacation time accrued prior to December 31, 1988, which has vested in such exempt employee as of that date and remains unused at the time of separation ?."
In this instance, said the court, ?it is clear from the record? that, prior to the effective date of §631-1(C), Sabatino, then a member of the "legislative personnel" of Suffolk County, was granted written approval by the Presiding Officer of the County Legislature to carry over the 444 hours of his vacation credits. Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that consistent with the terms of §631-1(C), ?those 444 hours vested in him, and he was entitled to be paid for them upon his retirement from service with the County.?
The Court also commented that ?While a municipality's interpretation of its local laws is entitled to great deference, and its interpretation will be upheld if it is not irrational, unreasonable, or contrary to governing language,? in situations where the issue involved is one of the ?pure legal interpretation,? such deference is not required.
Ruling that Supreme Court properly determined that Sabatino satisfied the requirements of §631-1(C), the Appellate Division said that the County ?may not impose additional requirements which are not present? in the Code.
* The cash value of the 444 hours of the unused vacation accruals claimed by Sabatino: $40,221.97.
** The writ of mandamus is one of number of the ancient ?common law? writs and is granted by a court to compel an official to perform "acts that officials are duty-bound to perform." Other writs include the writ of prohibition ? a writ issued by a higher tribunal to a lower tribunal to "prohibit" the adjudication of a matter then pending before the lower tribunal on the grounds that the lower tribunal "lacked jurisdiction;" the writ of injunction - a judicial order preventing a public official from performing an act; the writ of "certiorari," compelling a lower court to send it record of a case to the higher tribunal for review by the higher tribunal; and the writ of ?quo warranto? [by what authority]. The Civil Practice Law and Rules sets out the modern equivalents of the surviving ancient writs.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_04797.htm
Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on June 09, 2010 (boomark / email).
Discouraging Union Organizers
Strict work place rules
Lexmark to Pay $8.3M in Employee Vacation Class Action
Lexmark to Pay $8.3M in Employee Vacation Class Action
Restaurant Staff
Win Lawsuit Suit Against Employer for Infiltrating their MySpace Forum

Mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal
Employees win Jury Verdict in Accrued Vacation Case
Accrued Vacation Pay Is Covered by the Wage Payment and Collection Law
No Writ But Governor Ordered To Appoint Judge
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Moot
Court of Civil Appeals Has Jurisdiction to Issue Writ of Mandamus









