New York Law Review

Tag: Uniformed Firefighters v. Kingston

  • Uniformed Firefighters of Kingston, Local 461, IAFF, AFL-CIO v. City of Kingston, 39 N.Y.2d 240 (1976): Allocation of Insurance Tax Monies to Paid and Volunteer Firefighters

    Uniformed Firefighters of Kingston, Local 461, IAFF, AFL-CIO v. City of Kingston, 39 N.Y.2d 240 (1976)

    Absent a clear legislative directive to the contrary, both full-time paid firefighters and volunteer firefighters are entitled to share proportionately in the tax monies generated by sections 553 and 554 of the New York Insurance Law.

    Summary

    This case concerns the allocation of tax monies collected from foreign fire insurance companies under New York Insurance Law §§ 553 and 554. The central issue is whether full-time, paid firefighters in the City of Kingston are entitled to share these funds with volunteer firefighters, or whether the funds should be exclusively allocated to the volunteer fire department and an exempt firemen’s association. The Court of Appeals held that, in the absence of a specific legislative enactment excluding paid firefighters, both paid and volunteer firefighters are entitled to a proportionate share of the insurance premium tax. The Court emphasized that the Insurance Law aims to aid all fire departments and does not create a preference for volunteer firefighters.

    Facts

    The City of Kingston established a full-time paid fire department in 1907, augmenting the existing volunteer fire companies. Both the paid and volunteer firefighters responded to alarms and fought fires. Since 1879, tax monies collected under §§ 553 and 554 of the Insurance Law had been allocated solely to the benefit of the volunteer firefighters. The paid firefighters demanded a proportionate share of these funds, which was denied by the Board of Trustees of the Kingston Fire Department.

    Procedural History

    The paid firefighters initiated an action against the City of Kingston and the Board of Trustees, seeking a declaration that they were entitled to a proportionate share of the insurance tax monies. The trial court ruled that the levy should continue to be applied exclusively for the benefit of volunteer firefighters and the representative of disbanded volunteer companies. The Appellate Division affirmed, relying on a 1939 act that allocated funds to the Exempt Firemen’s Association upon disbandment of volunteer companies. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether full-time paid firefighters of the City of Kingston are entitled to share with volunteer firefighters the 2% tax levied by sections 553 and 554 of the Insurance Law on fire insurance premiums paid to foreign insurance companies for coverage on properties located within the City of Kingston, given the 1939 act that allocated funds to the Exempt Firemen’s Association upon disbandment of volunteer companies.

    Holding

    No, because the 1939 act does not expressly preclude disbursement to the paid members of the Kingston Fire Department, nor does it provide that all tax monies be paid over to the volunteers or the Exempt Firemen’s Association. Therefore, this enactment cannot deprive the paid firefighters of Kingston of their proportionate share authorized by the Insurance Law to all fire departments affording fire protection.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that §§ 553 and 554 of the Insurance Law do not create any preference in favor of volunteer firefighters. The purpose of the statutes is to strengthen and stimulate the growth of organized fire protection. While the statutes originated when fire protection was provided solely by volunteers, their application has been extended to include paid firefighters. The Court found the lower courts’ reliance on the 1939 act misplaced, stating that it merely ensured that the Exempt Firemen’s Association would continue to receive a portion of the funds if volunteer companies disbanded. The Court emphasized that the 1939 act did not explicitly exclude paid firefighters from receiving their proportionate share. The court noted that prior cases construing sections 553 and 554, in the absence of an express legislative enactment precluding the paid firemen of a particular city from sharing in the insurance premium tax, all firemen in the locality were entitled to share ratably in the funds collected pursuant to the Insurance Law.

    The Court quoted the Kingston City Charter, stating that the money collected under sections 553 and 554 should be applied “for the purposes set forth in * * * the insurance law.” These purposes are to aid and stimulate local fire departments without discriminating between paid and volunteer members. The Court reasoned that to deprive the paid firefighters of benefits afforded to them by the Insurance Law without a clear direction from the legislature would be contrary to the statute’s purpose. Thus, all firefighters in Kingston should share proportionately in the tax monies.