Justice Figueroa
Click here to see Judicial Profile
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=118597
PETITIONER school principal sought to annul the Corporation Counsel’s refusal to provide her with counsel, under General Municipal Law §50-k(2), in her defense against a federal suit brought by a ex-student. The Corporation Counsel argued he was not required to assign representation if he found that either of the conditions in the statute, regarding scope of employment and regulatory infraction, were not satisfied. The court noted the Corporation Counsel’s determination could not be nullified unless he lacked a factual basis. It found that it could “scarcely be clearer” the federal action concerned petitioner’s exercise of discretion in carrying out an aspect of her responsibilities as principal. Thus, the court noted that to conclude petitioner did not meet the scope of employment requirement would leave all employees who were vested with discretion vulnerable to the supposed logic that they were not employed to make bad judgments and their alleged missteps therefore disqualified them from having the promised protections of §50-k(2). It concluded the Corporation Counsel did not have a substantial basis to find petitioner violated a department regulation, ruling the decision not to represent petitioner was arbitrary and must be nullified.
