Heinrichs v. Town of Brookhaven

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified an order dismissing claims brought by a former Town of Brookhaven employee who alleged retaliation for reporting governmental corruption. The court reinstated claims under Civil Service Law § 75-b, for breach of a settlement agreement, and for First Amendment retaliation under 42 USC § 1983 against most of the Town defendants, while affirming dismissal of the federal retaliation claim against Anthony Gallino and dismissing part of the appeal concerning the law firm defendants.

Holdings

1. The appeal from dismissal of the tortious-interference-with-contract claim against the law-firm defendants was dismissed because the plaintiff did not oppose that branch of the motion and therefore was not aggrieved by it.
2. The first cause of action adequately stated a claim under Civil Service Law § 75-b against the Town and Highway Department, and the documentary evidence did not utterly refute the allegations or establish that the plaintiff had no cause of action.
3. The third cause of action adequately stated a breach-of-contract claim against the Town and Highway Department based on the alleged violation of the 2017 settlement stipulation.
4. The sixth cause of action adequately stated a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Town defendants other than Gallino. The claim was properly dismissed as against Gallino because his Town employment ended more than two years before the plaintiff's termination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appeal concerning dismissal of the tortious-interference-with-contract claim against the law-firm defendants had to be dismissed because the plaintiff did not oppose that branch of the motion and therefore was not aggrieved.
2. Whether the complaint adequately stated a whistleblower claim under Civil Service Law § 75-b against the Town and Highway Department.
3. Whether the complaint adequately stated a breach-of-contract claim based on the alleged violation of the 2017 settlement stipulation.
4. Whether the complaint adequately stated a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Town defendants other than Gallino.
5. Whether the documentary submissions conclusively established that the defendants were entitled to dismissal or that the individual Town defendants were entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage.

Disposition

other