MATTER OF CHALACHAN v. City of Binghamton

434 N.E.2d 256, 55 N.Y.2d 989, 449 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3162
New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 18, 1982·Published·Cited by 26 cases

Opinion

*990 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Petitioners, formerly firemen employed by respondent City of Binghamton, became disabled as a result of injuries sustained in the performance of their duties and thus were receiving their regular salary or wages pursuant to section 207-a. of the General Municipal Law. They commenced the instant article 78 proceeding when the city rejected their demands for payment of 1979 unused vacation time, which claims were grounded upon the collective bargaining agreement between the city and its firemen and not on any theory of statutory entitlement under section 207-a.

The collective bargaining agreement in question is entirely silent regarding the status of disabled firemen as employees of the city. Their continued status as employees even after disability has occurred is strictly a matter of statutory right. The collective bargaining agreement should not therefore be construed to implicitly expand whatever compensation rights are provided petitioners under the statute. Any additional benefits must be expressly provided for in the agreement, and petitioners’ argument that they are entitled to unused vacation benefits by reason of the absence of language specifically excluding their class from vacation benefits is thus without merit.

Although petitioners make no claim that unused vacation benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement, we note in passing that the argument would be unavailing in any event. The rights provided under section 207-a are expressly limited to “regular salary or wages”. Nor would it be appropriate to imply a right to vacation benefits under section 207-a since disabled firemen do not have to work at all, and to pay them for unused vacation time would unfairly discriminate against employees actually working (see Phaneuf v City of Plattsburgh, 84 Misc 2d 70, affd 50 AD2d 614, mot for lv to app dsmd 38 NY2d 1004).

*991 Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

MATTER OF CHALACHAN v. City of Binghamton, 434 N.E.2d 256, 55 N.Y.2d 989, 449 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3162 (N.Y. 1982).

434 N.E.2d 256 (MATTER OF CHALACHAN v. City of Binghamton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

The Matter of John Borelli v. City of Yonkers
New York Court of Appeals, 2022
Matter of Borelli v. City of Yonkers
2020 NY Slip Op 05744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of McKay v. Village of Endicott
2018 NY Slip Op 3406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
GOODWIN, ROBETTE v. PRETORIUS, M.D., RICHARD
105 A.D.3d 207 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Inc. Village of Floral Park v. Floral Park Police Benevolent Ass'n
89 A.D.3d 731 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Town of Tuxedo v. Town of Tuxedo Police Benevolent Ass'n
78 A.D.3d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re Arbitration between Town of Niskayuna
14 A.D.3d 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Watertown v. STATE PERB
733 N.E.2d 171 (New York Court of Appeals, 2000)
City of Watertown v. State of New York Public Employment Relations Board
733 N.E.2d 171 (New York Court of Appeals, 2000)
Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes v. City of Cohoes
731 N.E.2d 137 (New York Court of Appeals, 2000)
Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of Walden v. Kinsella
263 A.D.2d 885 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
City of Cohoes v. Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562
177 Misc. 2d 242 (New York Supreme Court, 1998)
Carpenter v. City of Troy
192 A.D.2d 920 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Willis v. Board of Selectmen of Easton
539 N.E.2d 524 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1989)
City of New York v. Davis
146 A.D.2d 480 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Benson v. County of Nassau
137 A.D.2d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
In re the Arbitration between County of Schenectady & Kelleher
134 A.D.2d 127 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
City of Schenectady v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board
132 A.D.2d 242 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
City of Schenectady v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board
135 Misc. 2d 1088 (New York Supreme Court, 1986)
Bett v. City of Lackawanna
132 Misc. 2d 630 (New York Supreme Court, 1986)