Background
The Civil Service Employees Association and employee Ralph DeBenedictis challenged the Town of Eastchester’s selection for a newly created general-foreman position. The governing collective bargaining agreement said seniority would determine selection when all other factors were equal. DeBenedictis and Richard Ruggerio applied, and the Town appointed Ruggerio in March 2020.
CSEA pursued the contractual grievance procedure and obtained a favorable award in nonbinding arbitration. The Town Board rejected that result in March 2021. The union and DeBenedictis then sued in October 2021 for breach of contract, damages, and related declaratory and injunctive relief. They did not file a verified claim with the town clerk within six months. Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the employees appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Department affirmed because Town Law § 65(3) makes timely filing of a written verified claim a condition precedent to an action against a town arising from a contract. The requirement reaches collective bargaining disputes and is not limited to traditional procurement agreements. Unlike some New York notice statutes, § 65(3) contains no provision allowing a court to excuse late or missing compliance.
The panel rejected the argument that the requested equitable relief avoided the statute. An exception can apply where a plaintiff pleads a genuinely ongoing or continuing violation, but this complaint challenged a completed appointment and did not allege such a violation. Because the plaintiffs sought damages along with injunction and declarations, filing the verified claim remained mandatory.
The grievance and nonbinding arbitration did not substitute for the statutory filing. The decision therefore ended the action without resolving whether the Town violated the seniority clause or properly rejected the arbitrator’s determination. The result rested on the unmet procedural prerequisite rather than the merits of the promotion dispute.
Key Takeaways
- A union grievance or arbitration demand does not necessarily satisfy Town Law § 65(3)’s separate verified-claim requirement.
- A plaintiff cannot avoid the filing condition merely by adding declaratory or injunctive remedies to a contract-damages case.
- The continuing-violation exception requires an ongoing wrong pleaded in the complaint, not continuing effects from a completed employment decision.
Why It Matters
Public-sector labor counsel should calendar statutory claim deadlines independently from contractual grievance deadlines. A union may be moving through negotiation and arbitration while the six-month period under Town Law § 65(3) continues to run. Filing a protective verified claim can preserve judicial remedies without abandoning the grievance process.
Towns and their counsel should examine compliance at the outset because the statute can dispose of a contract case before discovery into the merits. Employees and unions, meanwhile, should distinguish towns from other municipal entities and identify the correct claim statute, recipient, verification, and accrual date. The decision is a reminder that a favorable nonbinding labor award offers little protection if the later court action fails a mandatory gateway requirement.
Accrual deserves special attention in promotion, compensation, and benefits disputes. Counsel should not assume that each paycheck, continuing employment consequence, or refusal to honor an arbitral recommendation restarts the clock. The pleaded wrong and relief requested will shape whether a court views the matter as a completed breach or continuing violation. Early statutory analysis should accompany, not follow, the collective bargaining strategy.
The case also illustrates that remedy drafting cannot cure a missed condition precedent. Requests for reinstatement, declarations about seniority, or an injunction against future implementation may sound equitable, but courts look to the substance of the dispute and whether damages are also sought. A verified claim should identify the contract, challenged act, loss, and relief with enough detail to permit the town to investigate while the underlying events are still fresh.