Page 39 - WCBA Appellate Practice Committee CLE May 2024-Handout

commenced a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, and the Union cross-moved to compel
arbitration. The Supreme Court granted the Village’s petition to permanently stay arbitration on the
ground that the claim sought to be arbitrated was barred by the four-month statute of limitations
applicable to CPLR article 78 proceedings, and denied the cross-motion.

On appeal, the Second Department was faced with the primary issues of whether the underlying claim
was in the nature of CPLR article 78 seeking review of an administrative determination, or in the nature
of breach of contract, and, if the latter, whether the claim was predicated on a single breach or a series
of breaches that occurred with each paycheck. The Second Department found that the nature of the claim
was breach of contract, as the Union filed a grievance seeking redress for the Village’s alleged breach of
the CBA, not review of an administrative determination. Further, the claim was predicated on a series of
independent alleged breaches. A breach of contract cause of action is subject to a six-year statute of
limitations. However, such period is truncated here by CPLR 9802, which provides that an action to
recover damages for breach of contract with a village must be commenced within 18 months after the
cause of action accrued. In New York, a breach of contract cause of action accrues at the time of the
breach. The CBA required the Village to make ongoing payments on the employee’s behalf, and thus, a
new breach occurred, for statute of limitations purposes, each time the Village failed to make a required
payment. Accordingly, this Court found that the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the
petition which was to permanently stay arbitration of so much of the grievance as sought damages that
accrued within 18 months of the filing of the grievance, and should have granted that branch of the
Union’s cross-motion which was to compel arbitration of so much of the grievance as sought damages
that accrued within 18 months of the filing of the grievance.

Matter of Newsday, LLC v Nassau County Police Dept., 222 AD3d 85 (November 2023) by Brathwaite
Nelson, J.

In this CPLR Article 78 proceeding, the petitioner sought to compel the production of certain law
enforcement disciplinary records. In response to the petitioner’s requests, the NCPD withheld all
documents relating to complaints that were not determined to be substantiated on the ground that such
documents were categorically exempt from disclosure as an “unwarranted invasion of privacy” pursuant
to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b). The Supreme Court denied the petition, and, in effect, dismissed the
proceeding, finding that the personal privacy exemption of Public Officers Law § 87(2)(b) allowed the
NCPD to withhold any documents related to unsubstantiated complaints, and make redactions to the
records concerning such complaints.

The Second Department reversed, finding that records concerning unsubstantiated complaints or
allegations of misconduct are not categorically exempt from disclosure as an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy, and the NCPD is required to disclose the requested records, subject to redactions with
particularized and specific justification under Public Officers Law § 87(2), as mandated by section 87(4-a),
or as permitted by section 87 (4-b).

36