Remba v. Federation Employment & Guidance Service
Cases that cite this one
49 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Villarin v. Rabbi Haskel Lookstein School (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Villarin v. Rabbi Haskel Lookstein School (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Collette v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital (District Court, S.D. New York 2001)
- McKenna Ex Rel. United States v. Senior Life Management, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2006)
- Duarte v. St. Barnabas Hospital (District Court, S.D. New York 2017)
- Perez v. G & P Auto Wash Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2013)
- Manigaulte v. C.W. Post of Long Island University (District Court, E.D. New York 2009)
- Meadows v. PLANET AID, INC. (District Court, E.D. New York 2009)
- Calabro v. Nassau University Medical Center (District Court, E.D. New York 2006)
- Rohlehr v. Brookdale University Hospital & Medical Center (District Court, E.D. New York 2005)
- Schultz v. North American Insurance Group (District Court, W.D. New York 1999)
- Clarke v. TRW, INC. (District Court, N.D. New York 1996)
- McGrane v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1994)
- McGrane v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1993)
- Accettola v. He (District Court, S.D. New York 2025)
- Klein v. Metropolitan Child Services, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Klein v. Metropolitan Child Services, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Tomo v. Episcopal Health Services, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Rotwein v. Sunharbor Manor Residential Health Care Facility (New York Supreme Court 1999)
- Rodgers v. Lenox Hill Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Kraus v. New Rochelle Hospital Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Radice v. Elderpian, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Hughes v. Gibson Courier Services Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- United States Ex Rel. Mikes v. Straus (District Court, S.D. New York 1994)
- Arazi v. Cohen Brothers Realty Corporation (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff maintains that she was discharged because she objected to, and refused to participate in, defendant’s purported fraudulent billing of New York City, and that such retaliatory action is prohibited under Labor Law § 740 (2) (c) (the “Whistleblower” Law). This contention is unavailing, however, primarily because we agree with the Appellate Division that Labor Law § 740 (2) (c), like section 740 (2) (a), is triggered only by a violation of a law, rule or regulation that creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety (see, Easterson v Long Is. Jewish Med. Center, 156 AD2d 636, lv denied 76 NY2d 704; Kern v DePaul Mental Health Servs., 152 AD2d 957; Leibowitz v Bank Leumi Trust Co., 152 AD2d 169, 175-177).
In addition, after reviewing the legislative history, we conclude that the conduct complained of — fraudulent billing — is not the type of violation which creates a “substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety” (see, Leibowitz v Bank Leumi Trust Co., supra [fraudulent banking activities]; Vella v United Cerebral Palsy, 141 Misc 2d 976 [improper purchasing practice]; Givens, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 30, Labor Law § 740, at 546, 554- *803 557; but cf., Civil Service Law § 75-b [2] [a] [public employees protected from retaliation when they report conduct which they reasonably believe constitutes a violation of any Federal, State or local law, rule or regulation]). Finally, although the present "Whistleblower” statute has been criticized by commentators for not affording sufficient safeguards against retaliatory discharge (see, Minda and Raab, Time for an Unjust Dismissal Statute in New York, 54 Brooklyn L Rev 1137, 1138, 1182-1187 [1989]; Dworkin and Near, Whistleblowing Statutes: Are They Workingf, 25 Amer Bus LJ 241, 253 [1987]), any additional protection must come from the Legislature (see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329, 336).
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacos a concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.