Police Disability Pension

2019 Police Disability Pensions Year-in-Review

By: Sean Patrick Riordan, Esq.

2019 was a relatively slow year for Police Disability pensions, especially when compared to 2018 which brought the groundbreaking Kelly v. DiNapoli decision. The Appellate Division decisions didn’t break new precedential ground, but they did continue to illuminate what is, and will be, considered an “accident” for ¾’s purposes. They also continued to highlight two important areas of every disability application: 1) Contemporaneous Documentation of an injury is vitally important and 2) Officers are not “in service” for disability pension purposes until they start their shift or otherwise are performing their police duties.

Even more importantly, and in keeping with my theory that Kelly v. DiNapoli opened up “slip & fall” to greater ¾’s consideration, the Court found that unseen and unknown hazards that cause a slip and fall injury can be ¾’s eligible.

Accidental Nature of Injuries Cases:

The Appellate Division 3rd Department’s first case of 2019, Buckshaw v. DiNapoli, dealt with multiple accidental issues. The Police Officer testified that while he was restraining an EDP the carpet suddenly shifted under his feet due to poor installation. As a result, he fell and severely injured his leg. However, the officer’s contemporaneous documentation, and that of his fellow officer, told a different story. The incident and injury report noted that the Officer’s legs became entangled with the EDP’s, causing him to fall and become injured. The fellow officer’s report also stated these facts as the cause of his injury. Although the Court interestingly noted that the Officer’s testimony would have constituted an accident, his contemporaneous documentation did not. Instead, the restraint of an unruly individual is an “inherent risk” of a Police Officer’s duties and therefore not an “accident” for ¾’s purposes.

In Selke v. NYS Comptroller a Trooper was found not to have sustained an “accident” when he injured his back while securing a spare tire in the truck of his police vehicle. The Court found, and the Trooper had testified to, that the securing of a tire was a “routine duty” and injury incurred during such duties cannot be considered an “accident.”

In one of the more important cases of the year, Angelino v. NYS Comptroller, the Court found that although the Police Officer did not sustain an “accident” for ¾’s purposes the Retirement System must remand the case because their doctor failed to review all relevant medical testing. This is yet another case where the Officer’s testimony differed from his initial injury reports and the Court found that the Retirement System is free to give more weight to the contemporaneous documentation than the later testimony.

More importantly the Court found that the Retirement System’s Independent Medical Examiner (IME) failed to review an EMG that the Officer had undergone. The Officer’s treating doctor relied on this EMG as a basis for his finding that the Officer is permanently incapacitated. Because the Retirement System can only rely upon the opinion of its IME when such IME performs a physical examination and “reviews all relevant documentation”, the Court found that the IME’s opinion was lacking because he failed to review the single EMG report. This case represents a real procedural victory for Police Officers and will be relied on heavily by attorneys.

In the “slip and fall” case referenced above, Lewis v. NYS Comptroller, an officer reported to a motor vehicle accident after 5 inches of snow had fallen and had yet to be plowed. After his arrival on the scene 2 additional car accidents transpired. While walking over to the site of the 3rd accident applicant stepped into a snow covered pothole, calling and severely injuring himself. The Court found that the pothole represented an unseen and unknown hazard and was therefore an “unexpected and unanticipated” accident.

The State’s attorney also raised the issue of contemporaneous documentation in the Lewis case, noting that the initial injury report did not include any statement of a “pothole.” Importantly, the Court found that additional details regarding an accident are not, in and of themselves, contradictory of initial reports. Only where the additional facts contradict earlier statements does an issue of credibility arise. Further, the Court pointed out that the Officer may not have initially known that he stepped into a pothole since it was covered by snow. In this regard, the Court’s finding is extremely important; an Officer can add additional relevant facts to their disability applications as long as such additional facts do not undermine what was originally written.

“In Service” Cases:

The issue of whether an Officer is “in service” for disability pension cases arises several times a year (believe it or not). Although the rule associated with “in service” is long standing, 2 Appellate Division cases reiterated the point this year, Verille v. Gardner and Rosario v. NYS Comptroller.

In Verille, the Officer testified that he left his office before the end of his shift because he was headed to speak to a Confidential Informant. Further, the Officer alleged that the CI was related to an internal affairs investigation and, as a result, he did not inform anyone where he was going, nor did he complete any reports or write any notes about where he was heading. While heading to this alleged meeting the Officer was involved in an MVA and seriously injured. The Retirement System denied his application stating that the Officer was simply heading home and was no longer “in service” at the time of his injury. The Court upheld the determination, finding that the Officer bears the burden of proof in a disability retirement case and was unable to offer any proof that he was going to meet the CI. The moral of this story is, always let at least one person know where you are going!

In Rosario the Officer alleged that he was injured in the course of his duties while walking on Police Department property. During his testimony the Officer stated that he slipped and fell while walking into the precinct before the start of his shift. The Court upheld the System’s denial on the ground that an officer is not “in service” until they start their tour of duty or are otherwise engaged in police duties. Moral of this case is, if you are inured prior, or after, your tour of duty, make sure you specifically note how and why you should be considered to be engaging in police activity in your initial injury report.

Permanent Incapacity Cases:

Although I do not usually address permanent incapacity cases in these updates because they typically boil down to which doctor the judge believed, the Appellate Division decision in McGowan v. DiNapoli is significant for several reasons.

McGowan was a Deputy Chief of a department who applied for disability retirement and simultaneously took his service retirement. Upon retirement McGowan took a job as a government contractor, conducting back ground checks. The Retirement System’s IME stated that McGowan should be considered disabled from his Deputy Chief position only if such position required hands on police work such as arrests and field work. However, the IME stated that if the Deputy Chief position was largely sedentary, like his government contractor work, then he should not be considered disabled. The Retirement System denied the application, finding that McGowan’s Deputy Chief position was sedentary in nature.

The Court upheld the determination denying disability benefits, agreeing that McGowan’s position could be considered sedentary because he had not engaged in “regular performance of police duties, including arrests, within the year prior to his retirement.”

This case is a bit disturbing as there is no statutory or regulatory basis regarding the “1 year before retirement” that the Court references. It appears that this new standard was created out of thin air.

Just as importantly, and something that I discuss with Officers all the time, what an officer does for employment can affect their disability retirement. Here, the IME clearly found that the post-retirement work being performed by McGowan was to similar (in terms of physical demand) to his prior work. Officers should always consider this if they are planning on starting new employment while their disability pensions are pending.

Conclusion:

As always, if you have any questions or concerns regarding your Police Disability Pension, or are injured in the course of your duties, do not hesitate to contact me at (212) 612-3198 or email me at Sean@nycomplaw.com.

Be well and be safe!

Suffolk County PD – Heart Attack in the Line of Duty

It is now widely recognized that cardiovascular issues are nearly 1.7 times higher amongst police officers when compared to the general population [1]. These “heart” issues may vary in severity from mild hypertension to a fatal stroke and can be found in officers of all ages. [2]

Therefore, it becomes vitally important for all Suffolk County police officers to be aware of what may be available to them by way of Worker’s Compensation benefits, and NY General Municipal Law (GML) 207-c benefits, should they sustain a cardiac injury while in the line of duty. These are two distinct legal remedies that may be available to an officer under particular circumstances. They are not the same, and should not be treated as such:

Workers Compensation:

Worker’s Compensation is essentially an insurance required for nearly all employees in New York State including Suffolk County police officers. This insurance provides medical coverage and partial monetary compensation for injuries sustained as a result of their employment. The medical coverage extends only to the job-related injury, and the monetary amount for each officer is determined by the date of the injury in question, and the injured officer’s average weekly wage at that time. Essentially in order for a police officer to successfully obtain Worker’s Compensation benefits for a cardiovascular condition, he must provide medical evidence from his treating physician which shows how it relates to his/her employment.

In Employer: City of Schenectady, a police officer suffered a heart attack while at home after coming back from a strenuous training program required by his department. This officer was able to get Worker’s Compensation benefits because the medical experts agreed that the stress of his job duties as a police officer played a role in causing the heart attack, “It would be certainly appropriate to conclude that his severe job stresses that were present immediately prior to his myocardial infarction would have been a significant contributing factor to this event.” The officer had shown how his heart attack was due, at least in part, to his employment as an officer. Thus, he was able to obtain Workers’ compensation benefits.

GML § 207-c

GML § 207-c provides for the payment of an officer’s full salary and the cost of all medical treatment and hospital care for an individual injured or taken ill as the result of the performance of his/her job duties. This extends to medical bills that are not even part of the injury which the officer sustains in the line of duty.  Under the current standard, an employee is eligible for the benefit as long as they have an injury while in the performance of or takes ill as a result of, any duty within the range of their duties. The focus here is what duty a police officer is engaged in when the cardiac injury occurs. The injury must emanate from the officer’s performance while in the line of duty for GML 207-c to qualify. Therefore, an officer may sometimes be entitled to both GML 207-c and Worker’s Compensation benefits, but not always.

The application of these benefits can best be understood using the following example:

A police officer has a stroke while subduing a criminal who attempted to assault that officer. The officer’s treating physician cites the strenuous activity of restraining the criminal as the contributing factor which caused the heart attack. This stroke was caused by the officer’s employment with the police department, and it emanated from the performance of his duties. Therefore, he would also be entitled to benefits under GML 207-c.

However, if the heart attack occurred once the officer was off duty then that officer may only be entitled to Worker’s Compensation benefits because it did not occur during the performance of his duties.

In the event that an officer receives both Worker’s Compensation and GML  207-c benefits there are some nuances to keep in mind:

  • The Department may be entitled to reimbursement of the salary paid under GML 207-c from the Worker’s Compensation claim associated with the cardiovascular injury.
  • If an officer is receiving Worker’s Compensation benefits associated with the cardiovascular injury the Department is only obligated to pay the difference in salary if GML 207-c applies.
  • GML 207-c would cover all medical expenses not associated with the Worker’s Compensation claim.

Please follow up with your treating physician if you feel that your work as a police officer is contributing to a cardiovascular problem. Given the increased risks of cardiovascular issues posed to all officers, we would encourage you to make sure that you are well versed in these benefits should the worst occur. Feel free to contact our office at 631-665-0609 if you would like to learn more.

[1] Zimmerman FH Cardiol Rev. 2012 Jul-Aug; 20(4):159-66.

[2] Id.

NYS Police Compensation Seminar Hosted by MDASR

McIntyre, Donohue, Accardi, Salmonson & Riordan, LLP was honored to host members of the NYS Police for an evening of networking, great food & drinks and an important and fundamental discussion. Partners Ed McIntyre, Sean Riordan and James Seganti spoke about compensation rights as NYS Law Enforcement in the event of an accident or injury on the job and the potential effects on their pensions.

Ed McIntyre, discussed the requirements for NYS Law Enforcement to qualify for workers’ compensation and how essential it is to know what you are entitled to when injured. He also discussed the potential for substantial workers compensation awards that injured Troopers often fail to pursue.  Ed spoke about the firm’s workers’ compensation attorneys and their expertise in the procedure when filing for coverage.

James Seganti spoke about the crucial need for World Trade Center First Responders to submit the WTC-12 Sworn Statement to meet the requirements for coverage in the event they seek workers’ compensation in the future. The deadline for this form is September 11, 2022, and is necessary in the event that you develop a disease or illness related to your time in rescue, recovery or cleanup.

Sean Riordan covered the current legal climate for what now qualifies as an accident on the job and how recent court decisions have turned disability pension litigation upside down. Retaining talented and knowledgeable attorneys is crucial in the outcome of the of your case and the total of your pension.

If you have been injured on the job contact our attorneys for a free claim evaluation at (866) 557-7500. Multiple conditions, work related or not, may in combination be enough to establish a successful claim.

New 3rd Department Case Changes the Way We Analyze 3/4’s Cases

 

An important message on behalf of our firm from two of our partners, Ed McIntyre and Sean Riordan:

New 3rd Department Case Changes the Way We Analyze 3/4’s Cases

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Friends,

On Thursday April 26th, the Appellate Division, 3rd Department issued an very important decision regarding Police ¾’s claims. The determination has far reaching implications for those permanently injured in the line-of-duty. I hope you will share this information with your memberships as it only adds to the importance of their initial “Injured Employee Paperwork.”

The case, Stancarone v. DiNapoli, is the Appellate Division’s response to the Court of Appeals’ February decision in Kelly v. DiNapoli. For those not familiar with the Kelly case, the Court of Appeals found that a Police Officer, injured when a ceiling rafter collapsed upon him while he was attempting to rescue a family during a hurricane, was not entitled to a ¾’s pension. The ruling, and in a biting dissent, pointed out that the courts have been extremely inconsistent in their ¾’s determinations, specifically pointing to the varying determinations on what is, and is not, an “accident.”

The 3rd Department, who has jurisdiction over Article 78 Appeals emanating from the N.Y.S. Retirement System, acknowledged at the outset “that the standard to qualify for accidental disability retirement benefits has not always been clearly stated, with part of the confusion stemming from the use of imprecise and differing language in prior cases.” While the standard definition of “accident”, “a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary and injurious in impact” is not changed under the 3rd Department’s decision in Stancarone, the 3rd Department set out a new way of analyzing these cases which will have lasting importance.

The first major change announced by Stancarone is a recognition of the Kelly decision’s statement that “requiring a petitioner to demonstrate that a condition was not readily observable in order to demonstrate an “accident” is inconsistent with case law.” The Court does away with the “readily observable” standard. In short, this directly impacts those “trip and fall” cases that have traditionally been held non-accidental when the officer could not show that the hazard they tripped and fell on was not “readily observable” and therefore could have been avoided. For example, an officer who slipped and fell on a staircase due to a juice box left on the stairs was denied his ¾’s because the judge found that the juice box was “readily observable” and therefore the officer slipping on it was his own “misstep” and not an “accident” for ¾’s purposes. Under Stancarone, the analysis of this hypothetical case is now different. Under Stancarone, the officer’s “inattention” to the juice box which caused his fall cannot be used as the reason he is denied a ¾’s pension. Even if the condition that caused the fall is readily observable, if it was not seen prior to the injury the event leading to the injury can be deemed an “accident” qualifying for ¾’s. The effective elimination of the “readily observable” standard should enable a much fairer analysis of what constitutes an “accident” and bring it more in-line with the “common sense definition of accident” as the Court of Appeals envisioned when it defined “accident” in 1982 in the case Lichtenstein v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of City of New York.

The second major analysis change announced in Stancarone is that the Retirement System must have a “specific information” in the evidentiary record that “a person in the petitioner’s position and location” could have reasonably anticipated the hazard which caused their injury. This finding goes to the “unexpected” nature of the event. For many years the Retirement System has denied ¾’s cases on the basis that an officer could have “reasonably anticipated” the hazard which caused their injury. As an example, the Court points to an officer who is injured due to a slip and fall on a slippery substance in a roadway. The Court stated unequivocally that “a blanket argument, such as “sometimes slippery surfaces exist in public roadways” is, alone, not enough to support a conclusion that the petitioner should have expected or reasonably anticipated the spot on which he or she slipped.” The court stated that a finding that the condition which caused the injury was “reasonably anticipated” must be supported by the “substantial evidence of record.”

The importance of this second change cannot be understated. Far too often an officer has been denied ¾’s because a Hearing Officer has issued a determination that the hazard presented was “reasonably anticipated” based on nothing but general conjecture and speculation. The Court now demands that the Retirement System analyze the micro-factors of the specific officer, the specific location and position of the officer at the time of the injury and explain why the hazard could have been reasonably anticipated by the individual officer.

As noted above, the Stancarone decision only adds to the importance of an officer’s initial injury paperwork. “Contemporaneous documentation” is still considered the most relevant, and accurate, description of the accident so getting it right remains the highest priority. Officer’s should take care to explain, where possible, such factors as:

 

where their attention was when they were Injured –  (i.e. “while searching for a suspect”);

Lighting conditions –  (i.e. “while searching for a suspect in a dimly lit back yard”);

Their familiarity with the area-  (i.e. “while searching for a suspect in dimly lit backyard that I have never previously been in before”); the specific hazard (i.e. “while searching for a suspect in a dimly lit backyard that I have never been in before I tripped and fell due to a large tree branch.”);

A statement about the surrounding area –  (i.e. “While searching for a suspect in a dimly lit backyard that I have never previously been in before I tripped and fell due to a large tree branch. I had not encountered any previous tree branches or other footing hazards in the backyard prior to my fall).

-Of course, all injuries are unique, and any other factors which may be relevant to why the officer could not have reasonably anticipated the hazard should be presented.

Understanding that many officers speed through the initial paperwork because they are 1) in pain and 2) very rarely believe that their injuries are career ending, I urge union officials and delegates to reach out to me (646-831-6229) or Ed McIntyre (631-921-5499) at any time to ensure that an officer highlights the important factors surrounding his/her injury.

Below, you will find a copy of the Stancarone decision.

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2018/523755.pdf

Be well and stay safe.

Attorney Advertising.

Closing Rikers Island would be at the expense of CO, Borough, inmate safety

One of Rikers Islands nine correctional facilities will close this summer, beginning with the George Motchan Detention Center (GMDC). In a statement from our partner, Sean Riordan, Esq., “In the Mayor’s continual attempt to close Rikers Island he has announced the pending closure of GMDC. This closure can only be viewed as creating a greater risk to the personal safety of Correction Officers throughout Rikers Island. As attacks on officers have risen drastically in 2017, further crowding of existing facilities will create untold dangers for officers in 2018 and beyond. ‘The “re-thinking’ of the city’s jail system should not be done at the expense of officer safety.”

There are more than a couple of reasons why closing the Correction Facility would not do corrections officers, inmates, or the Boroughs any good:

1) Several Borough officials and waves of community members have come out in opposition against jails being built in the boroughs. An article linked below in The Queens Gazette notes that there was potential for a new jail that would be built within proximity to several schools in the Bronx.

2) With the expanse of over 400 acres and 9 buildings that is Rikers Island, many are saying that the proposed replacement buildings in the Boroughs could not house anywhere close to the reduction goal of 5,000 inmates. An alternative is to renovate the facilities. These same renovations were cited as reasons to close the jails, as proposed in the past by NYS Chief Justice Jonathan Lippman.

3) Downsizing has already been positively correlated to spikes in violence, according to statistics from 2017. This has to lead one to ask, what would even further downsizing do?

In the article on qgazzete.com, “Former New York State Chief Justice Jonathan Lippman led a study performed by the Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform Commissioners that determined the reasons for closing Rikers Island are as follows: dilapidated buildings; lack of visitor access to the facility for inmates’ family members; significant time and resources needed to ferry individuals to and from the courts; and the lack of private, safe spaces to provide detainees with effective on-site programming.” These are all things that could take place without the displacement of inmates and Corrections Officers and the raising of new jails throughout boroughs.

With the staggering budget needed to rehouse inmates and rebuild new jails, renovations could take place, as Queens Councilmen Bob Holden suggested after a tour of Rikers according to the Queens Gazette. As cited on QNS.com, “…the combined capacity of the borough jails is estimated to be 2,300, so Holden believes the nearly $11 billion cost of renovating and expanding them would be too high.” That combined capacity is less than half of the Mayor’s reduction goal. Keeping that same budget within Rikers Island to update it would be a significantly more productive, and by all accounts safer, allocation of money and time.

An article on NY Post notes that most recently, Mayor de Blasio is suing Governor Cuomo over an order that forces an expedited closure of the Robert N. Donovan Detention Center (RNDC). Housing primarily teenagers, closing RNDC could displace them into facilities with adults, removing them from classroom settings within the RNDC. These same programs have had a proven, positive effect on inmates. Shortly after that information was released, another CO was slashed in the face; this comes just a few weeks after the orchestrated attack on Officer Jean Souffrant.

Links

NYC to Close One Jail on Rikers Island This Summer

First Rikers Island jail to close in summer as part of city’s 10-year plan to shut down the complex

Rikers Island Shutdown Meeting Draws Large Crowd

‘There are no advantages’ to closing Rikers Island, two Queens officials say at prison panel

De Blasio sues to block Cuomo from closing Rikers facility

Correction officer slashed by inmate at Rikers hours after public hearing about violence against employees

NYCERS denies NYC EMT disability, MDASR steps up.

MDASR, LLP wins another important ¾’s Article 78 case!

An FDNY EMT suffered severe illnesses and injuries related to her heroic actions during the 9/11 clean-up operations. After being initially denied ¾’s Disability Retirement benefits from the New York City Employees Retirement System (“NYCERS”), a Supreme Court judge found that the NYCERS Medical Board acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in finding her not disabled. This represents a legal finding that NYCERS acted without “any credible evidence” to support its decision. The judge went on to note that the NYCERS Medical Board did not counter the EMT’s own treating physicians, nor those of the FDNY’s own physicians who had all found her incapable of performing the full duties required of an EMT. More importantly, the judge also found that the NYCERS Medical Board had failed to discuss the specific job duties and responsibilities required of an EMT, nor how our client could do the job despite her well documented physical limitations.

MDASR continues to help level the playing field for injured workers seeking disability benefits. If you were injured as a result of your job, call us today at (631) 665-0609.

 

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

NYPD’s ShotSpotter yields positive results

NYPD is reporting that the gunshot-locating technology ShotSpotter has helped lower shootings throughout Brooklyn and the Bronx. An article on nydailynews.com grants a number of accomplishments as a result of the technology: “The rise comes as both arrests by police and complaints against officers are down substantially while the department adheres to a new policing philosophy that stresses a closer relationship between cops and the neighborhoods they serve.” Another triumph is noted by the same article, stating that, “…34% of shootings detected by ShotSpotter also resulting in a 911 call, according to 2016 statistics.” The technology can detect acoustics and is able to differentiate between gunshots and other loud noises that typically come with living in The Big Apple.

The implementation of the technology was a move to help officers and community members. With a possible federal budget cut looming, this program cannot afford to be lost considering its results. The technology draws a picture of how many detected shots are called into 911 and how many aren’t. The data collected will tell cops how New Yorkers are responding to shootings. Not only has it statistically cut the number of non-reported gunshots almost in half, but it also draws a clearer picture of shootings. Nearly all ShotSpotter-detected shootings that were associated with a 911 call resulted in a weapon being obtained from the crime scene. More weapons are being collected and more calls are being made as a result of this technology. According to an article posted on NY1.com the year the technology first implemented, it covered three housing districts and 17 precincts. It has doubled in reach since then.

This technology has been in place for about two years, but the improvements in the data are new, as well as the plan to expand this technology to all five boroughs.

NYPD: New ‘ShotSpotter’ Sensors Automatically Detect Location of Gunfire

EXCLUSIVE: NYPD ShotSpotter gunfire sensors improve rates of 911 calls, arrests

 

NYPD gears up after London attack in wake of proposed budget cut

Last week, the Trump administration released their plan for a 10% spike in military spending. Roughly $700 million in federal grants from the Department of Homeland Security would be cut, according to an article posted on Newsday.com. These are the same grants that provide funding for counterterrorism efforts for local law enforcement agencies across the country, affecting everything from equipment to manpower. An estimated $110 million in DHS grants would be cut from their budget. Considering the NYPD is the largest municipal police force in the country, this kind of cut to their nearly $5 Billion budget is worrisome, to say the least. Senator Chuck Schumer and NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill appeared in Washington DC to show how important this funding is. Commissioner O’Neill stated in a New York Daily News article, “This is critical for our operation… that $110 million represents about 600 cops. I don’t think there’s clearer terms than that.” The $110 Million cut is just one estimated slash. An article on NYMag.com says that the cut could be as high has $190 million. Schumer told New York Daily News that in 2016 the NYPD received $180 million in DHS grants for the same kind of programs and operations that would be defunded under the currently proposed budget plan, which means that all or most of what the NYPD has to support their counterterrorism programs would be taken away.

This came shortly before a terror attack in London this week. New York City and the NYPD responded by ramping up security at its British locations, according to Newsday. The British Consulate General and the U.K. Mission to the U.N. are just two locations that have been given extra security. Most of the security for these locations came from the NYPD’s Critical Response Command, a team that would greatly feel the weight of the budget cuts, along with other crucial counterterrorism programs. Schumer has been successful in stopping these kinds of budget cuts to the city in the past, and we can only hope he and Commissioner O’Neill are successful in stopping this now.

Please see the articles below for sources and further information.

London attack: NYPD steps up security at British locations in NYC

EXCLUSIVE: NYPD top cop James O’Neill visits Washington to battle Trump’s security funding cuts

NYPD top cop James O’Neill says Trump’s budget would severely impede the city’s fight against terrorism

Schumer: Trump would cut $200M from NYPD anti-terrorism, other funds

NYPD Commissioner Says Trump’s Budget Would ‘Hobble’ Counterterrorism Efforts

 

Neighborhood Policing initiative receives $20 Mil budget

In the wake of a newly ratified NYPD PBA contract, the NYPD just received a hefty budget for their Queens precincts to bolster Mayor de Blasio’s Neighborhood Policing Initiative. The new PBA contract includes a 2.25% raise as part of the program but will be going to all officers regardless of their participation. According to an article posted on AM New York, the breakdown of the budget is as follows;

  • Just over half of the budget will be going to purchasing vehicles for all Queens precincts-164 total vehicles.
  • Close to $3 Million will be spent on technology for recruits and their superiors, specifically tablets.
  • Over $2 Million will be spent on replacing old AEDs with new ones.
  • $1.6 Million will be spent on providing NYPD members with safer gun holsters.

Please see the link below for more information.

NYPD gets more than $20M for new equipment in Queens precincts

 

75 new detectives to protect the Bronx

New York City and the NYPD has stated a victory in finding that the number of homicides has gone down, but in the case of what has become New York’s most violent borough-the Bronx-the NYPD has gone to new lengths to bring it up to par with Manhattan and the rest of the five boroughs.

According to the New York Times, the NYPD announced last week that they would be sending close to 80 new investigators to the Bronx. A study published by New York Times analyzed deployment data showing that officers in the Bronx dealt with the highest felony caseloads in the five boroughs. The New York Times study published just a few weeks prior to this announcement determined that “Precinct Detectives in the Bronx last year carried out more than twice as many violent felony cases on average as detectives in Manhattan or Staten Island, and over 50 percent more than those in Brooklyn or Queens.”, noted in the article linked below. The study also showed that budgetary resources are being invested elsewhere, such as counter-terrorism instead of the deployment of officers. This ultimately resulted in the Bronx not feeling the same relief of lower crime rates that were felt in Manhattan and the rest of New York City. The decision to deploy the 75 white-shield investigators, who are on track to become gold shield detectives, has been met with support from NYPD officials and the Bronx District Attorney as well as criticism from other New York City public officials. Letitia James, the City’s public advocate, expressed that this problem in the Bronx had been ignored for too long. The NYPD Chief of Detectives, Robert Boyce, has told New York Times that the deployment should be underway by the end of the month.

Within the last year, there has been a growing trend of readjusting the staff of jails and prisons to keep the facilities safer for both Correction’s Officers and inmates, and a trend of public employee reform in general. This year began with legislative measures being announced to protect transportation workers and construction workers, and it looks like this trend has now transferred over to the Police Departments. This also comes in the wake of the new contract agreement between Mayor de Blasio and the PBA, the first in 5 years.

Police to Strengthen Force in New Yorks’ Most violent Borough