Matter of Rochester Police Locust Club, Inc. v. City of Rochester
2021 NY Slip Op 03787
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2021Background
- In 2019 Rochester adopted Local Law No. 2, creating a nine‑member Police Accountability Board (PAB) empowered to hear police disciplinary cases and impose discipline; certain categories of persons (current/former officers and many relatives) are barred from service on PAB and appointment rules rely in part on an "Alliance."
- PAB decisions are binding on the Police Chief, who must implement PAB discipline without reduction; the Chief may only add punishment above PAB's penalty.
- The Rochester Police Locust Club (union), its president, and an officer sued, arguing Local Law No. 2 unlawfully removed police‑discipline from collective bargaining and violated Civil Service Law § 75 and Unconsolidated Laws § 891.
- The trial court declared invalid the portions of Local Law No. 2 that authorize PAB to conduct disciplinary hearings and discipline officers, and sua sponte referred the law back to City Council for reconciliation.
- On appeal, the court analyzed the Taylor Law collective‑bargaining regime and the PBA line of Court of Appeals cases (which grandfather preexisting local discipline schemes), concluded Rochester’s 1907 charter provision had been repealed in 1985 and thus Rochester no longer qualified for the PBA grandfathering exception, and affirmed invalidation of PAB’s disciplinary authority but vacated the trial court’s referral order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Local Law No. 2 unlawfully removes police discipline from collective bargaining (Taylor Law §204(2)). | Local Law No. 2 transfers disciplinary authority to PAB and thus eliminates collective‑bargaining rights over discipline, violating the Taylor Law. | PAB is permissible because Rochester historically had a charter provision exempting discipline from bargaining (1907 law); City Council may reinstate that arrangement. | Held: Invalid — Rochester’s preexisting 1907 disciplinary provision was repealed in 1985, so PBA grandfathering does not apply; Local Law No. 2 conflicts with Taylor Law and is invalid insofar as it removes discipline from collective bargaining. |
| Whether the 1907 charter provision remains "in force" so as to exempt Rochester from PBA's collective‑bargaining rule. | Plaintiffs: 1985 repeal eliminated the grandfathered exemption; Rochester must bargain. | City Council: 1985 repeal was ineffective or could be undone; the 1907 policy persists. | Held: 1985 repeal was valid and removed the grandfathered status; the exemption no longer exists. |
| Whether PAB hearing procedure violates Civil Service Law §75(2) and Unconsolidated Laws §891 requiring hearings before the officer/body with power to remove. | Plaintiffs: PAB is not the proper hearing body and Local Law violates §75(2) and §891. | City Council: Chief still appears as the official with removal power because chief must effectuate discipline. | Held: Rejected trial court’s §75(2)/§891 ruling — PAB is the primary "body having the power to remove" under Local Law No. 2, so designation of PAB as hearing panel did not independently violate those statutes (but this is moot because of Taylor Law conflict). |
| Whether the trial court properly "referred" Local Law No. 2 back to City Council to reconcile it with state law. | Plaintiffs accepted referral as appropriate remedial guidance. | City Council opposed referral as improper judicial action. | Held: Trial court erred to the extent it sua sponte referred the law back; courts lack power to send statutes back for legislative amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of City of Schenectady v. N.Y. State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 30 N.Y.3d 109 (2017) (police discipline presumptively subject to collective bargaining absent a preexisting law in force)
- Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v. N.Y. State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 6 N.Y.3d 563 (2006) (established exception for municipalities with preexisting charter/statute vesting disciplinary power exclusively in local officials)
- Matter of Town of Wallkill v. Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., 19 N.Y.3d 1066 (2012) (applied PBA framework to municipal discipline/bargaining disputes)
- Eric M. Berman, P.C. v. City of New York, 25 N.Y.3d 684 (2015) (local law inconsistent with a general state law is invalid)
- People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88 (2004) (courts lack authority to "refer" invalid statutes back to legislature for amendment)