To All Delegates and Members

May 12, 2000

PBA WINS RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN “SECTION 1127" CASE

In a much anticipated decision, on May 5, 2000, New York Supreme Court Judge Stanley L. Sklar granted the PBA’s Motion to Intervene on behalf of the non petitioners in the case of Ganley et. al. v. Guiliani et. al.  (i.e., the “Section 1127" case involving former members of the New York City Transit and Housing Police Departments). This case represents a significant victory for the PBA, the first union to make a motion on behalf of its members to intervene in this matter. Moreover, it is a tremendous win for former members of the Transit and Housing Police Departments, who were wrongfully subjected to the Section 1127 deductions.

The Decision

In granting the motion, Judge Sklar held that the “intervenors’ claims relate back to the filing of the initial petition.” In other words, the non petitioners effectively step into the shoes of the original petitioners. Accordingly, we believe that they are entitled to the same relief enjoyed by the original petitioners resulting from the Court of Appeals decision and order, dated November 30, 1999.

Who Does the Decision Apply To?

Judge Sklar’s decision applies to those former members of the Transit and Housing Police Departments“ who were or who became nonresidents from April 1995 through December 1999, and who were wrongfully subjected to the section 1127 deductions, as held by the Court of Appeals.”

What Issues Still Remain?

The issues that still remain are the refunding of the section 1127 funds collected from April 1995 until December 1999 from the transferred employees who were not part of the original suit, and the amount of the interest, costs, disbursements and attorneys’ fees that may be due to them from the City. As of April 14, 2000, the original petitioners were refunded the amount they were owed, less interest. The City still maintains that the payment of interest is inappropriate in this case. Judge Sklar did not indicate in his decision whether anyone is entitled to interests or costs.

The Judge must still issue a final order, which will delineate the City’s obligations regarding refunds consistent with the decision. We believe that the Judge’s final order will grant relief similar to that granted original petitioners.

We will inform you as soon as the Judge issues a final order.

See also TADAMS of December 15, 1999 and March 13, 2000.

Fraternally,

Patrick J. Lynch
President