Haynes v. Guiliani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haynes v. Guiliani

238 A.D.2d 257, 657 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4314

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 257 (Haynes v. Guiliani) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haynes v. Guiliani, 238 A.D.2d 257, 657 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about December 13, 1995, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation’s (HHC) decision to redeploy petitioners from the HHC Headquarters and replace them with private security guards, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation is an entity separate and distinct from the City of New York with "complete autonomy respecting its personnel” (Vaughn v City of New York, 108 Misc 2d 994, 998, affd 89 AD2d 944; see also, Brennan v City of New York, 59 NY2d 791), and, accordingly, should not be deemed an "agency” within the meaning of Local Laws, 1994, No. 35 of the City of New York (Local Law 35) regulating the privatization of services performed by City employees. Assuming in petitioners’ favor that HHC can subject itself to specific statutes, ordinances or rules generally applicable to City employees, such as Local Law 35, we reject petitioners’ contention HHC did so by entering into the Citywide Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effect of article I (§ 1) of that agreement, relied on by petitioners, which recognizes a particular union "as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative on citywide matters which must be uniform for the [covered] employees”, is not to require uniformity in the terms of employment for all covered employees, but rather to recognize the union as the sole bargaining representative for those "matters which must be uniform”. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about December 13, 1995, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation’s (HHC) decision to redeploy petitioners from the HHC Headquarters and replace them with private security guards, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation is an entity separate and distinct from the City of New York with "complete autonomy respecting its personnel” (Vaughn v City of New York, 108 Misc 2d 994, 998, affd 89 AD2d 944; see also, Brennan v City of New York, 59 NY2d 791), and, accordingly, should not be deemed an "agency” within the meaning of Local Laws, 1994, No. 35 of the City of New York (Local Law 35) regulating the privatization of services performed by City employees. Assuming in petitioners’ favor that HHC can subject itself to specific statutes, ordinances or rules generally applicable to City employees, such as Local Law 35, we reject petitioners’ contention HHC did so by entering into the Citywide Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effect of article I (§ 1) of that agreement, relied on by petitioners, which recognizes a particular union "as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining representative on citywide matters which must be uniform for the [covered] employees”, is not to require uniformity in the terms of employment for all covered employees, but rather to recognize the union as the sole bargaining representative for those "matters which must be uniform”. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 257, 657 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-guiliani-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack