| Palmer v Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08947 [56 AD3d 1245] |
| November 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Mark Palmer, Appellant, v Niagara Frontier TransportationAuthority, Respondent. |
—[*1] Jaeckle Fleischmann & Mugel, LLP, Buffalo (Sean P. Beiter of counsel), fordefendant-respondent.
Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (JosephR. Glownia, J.), entered August 2, 2007. The order and judgment, among other things, granteddefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmedwithout costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that he was terminated from hisemployment with defendant in retaliation for his having advised defendant's employees andagents of alleged safety violations at his work site. Supreme Court properly granted defendant'smotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The first cause of action, alleging theviolation of Civil Service Law § 75-b, "seeks only to vindicate [plaintiff's] individualinterests," and it therefore is precluded based on plaintiff's failure to file a notice of claimpursuant to Public Authorities Law § 1299-p (1) (Roens v New York City Tr.Auth., 202 AD2d 274, 274 [1994]; see Matter of Rigle v County of Onondaga, 267AD2d 1088 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 764 [2000]). That cause of action also is notviable because Civil Service Law § 75-b (2) (a) (i) prohibits a public employer from, interalia, terminating a public employee based on the employee's disclosure of the "violation of a law,rule or regulation which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to thepublic health or safety" (see generally Peace v KRNH, Inc., 12 AD3d 914 [2004], lvdenied 4 NY3d 705 [2005]; Gardner v Continuing Dev. Servs., 292 AD2d 838[2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 612 [2002], cert denied 537 US 1201 [2003];Vail-Ballou Press v Tomasky, 266 AD2d 662, 663-664 [1999]; Green v SaratogaA.R.C., 233 AD2d 821, 822 [1996]). Here, defendant established as a matter of law that thesafety concerns raised by plaintiff did not present such a danger, and plaintiff failed to raise anissue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).Moreover, defendant established that the supervisors who terminated plaintiff's employment wereunaware of plaintiff's disclosure, and thus there is no causal connection on the record before usbetween the disclosure of plaintiff's safety concerns and plaintiff's termination (see Matter ofChamberlin v Jacobson, 260 AD2d 317 [1999]). Plaintiff's "mere conclusions, expressions ofhope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient" to raise a triable issue of fact[*2]concerning the knowledge of plaintiff's supervisors(Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 562).
We note that plaintiff on appeal has raised no issues concerning the dismissal of theremaining cause of action and thus is deemed to have abandoned any such issues (seeCiesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984 [1994]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith,Green, Pine and Gorski, JJ.