NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
December 4, 2008
NORMAN SEABROOK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE CORRECTION OFFICERS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered May 7, 2007, which granted defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Lippman, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Sweeny, Acosta, JJ.
The agency policy of not allowing an employee to consult with a union representative after a question is posed and before an answer must be given, at an interrogation conducted pursuant to Mayoral Executive Order No. 16, was reasonably designed to promote truthful responses by discouraging coaching. This did not deprive the employee of his right to union representation under Civil Service Law § 75(2) or National Labor Relations Bd. v J. Weingarten, Inc. (420 US 251 ). While plaintiff relies on Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd (826 A2d 932 [PA 2003]), which holds the opposite, that case is not binding on this court and we reject its reasoning.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.