If a private architect or engineer audits New York City building filings and later testifies for the state in a misconduct case, will the state defend and indemnify them if they get sued?

Plain-English summary

In 1996 the Education Department asked whether the state would back up volunteer experts who agreed to testify in professional-misconduct cases against architects and engineers. The context: New York City's Department of Buildings ran an alternative review program, the "professional certification option," that let a licensed architect or engineer self-certify that filed construction specifications complied with city building rules. NYC then audited a sample of those self-certifications using private-sector architects and engineers drawn from professional associations. When an audit suggested misconduct, the state Education Department prosecuted the offending professional, and the auditor would need to testify.

Without protection, auditors faced a problem. They were not state employees. If the targeted architect sued them, they would pay their own defense costs and any judgment. Both the Education Department and the Health Department had run into the same recruitment problem in the early 1980s, which led the Legislature to amend Public Officers Law § 17 in 1980 and 1981 to specifically cover experts assisting either department in professional-misconduct investigations and prosecutions.

The AG concluded those audit experts fit the carved-out category. The 1981 legislative history described exactly this concern: professionals would not volunteer if they had no protection against nuisance suits. The 1980 amendment for misconduct cases and the 1981 amendment for licensure cases share the same policy. The opinion stressed that the coverage should be read narrowly, ordinary fact witnesses do not get it, but architects and engineers giving expert opinions on whether the targeted professional met expected standards do.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What is "defense and indemnification" in this context?

Defense means the Attorney General's office represents the person if they get sued for something done in the scope of the work. Indemnification means the state pays the judgment or settlement (subject to limits, such as the malice carve-out in Education Law § 6510(7)). Section 17 of the Public Officers Law sets the framework; certain conditions apply, including timely notice to the AG.

Why are auditors not just classified as independent contractors and excluded?

Section 17 generally excludes independent contractors from the "employee" definition. But the 1980 and 1981 amendments built specific exceptions for consultants and experts assisting the Education Department and Health Department in professional-discipline cases. The AG read those exceptions as deliberate carve-outs from the independent-contractor exclusion, not as accidents.

Would the state cover testimony by every witness called in a misconduct hearing?

No. The opinion explicitly limited the holding. Ordinary lay fact witnesses do not get indemnification. The coverage runs to people who serve as consultants or expert witnesses by providing their professional opinion on whether the targeted licensee deviated from accepted standards. Auditors who give both factual findings from their audit work and expert opinion on professional norms sit inside that line.

What is the "professional certification option" the opinion describes?

The NYC Department of Buildings let a licensed architect or engineer file a complete set of construction specifications certified as compliant with applicable city building regulations. The Department then audited at least 20% of certified filings within 45 days. The certifying professional signed an undertaking to face discipline if misrepresentations were found.

Background and statutory framework

Public Officers Law § 17 generally defines "employee" as a person holding a state position by election, appointment, or employment, plus authorized volunteers in state-sponsored programs, and explicitly excludes independent contractors. The exception relevant here covers "persons who assist the education department or the department of health as consultants or expert witnesses in the investigation or prosecution of alleged professional misconduct, licensure matters, restoration proceedings, or criminal prosecutions for unauthorized practice."

Education Law § 6510(7) repeats this coverage for Education Department experts and adds that indemnification does not extend to actions involving actual malice.

Chapter 866 of the Laws of 1980 added expert coverage for professional-misconduct cases. Chapter 228 of the Laws of 1981 added expert coverage for licensure matters, restoration proceedings, and criminal prosecutions for unauthorized practice. The 1981 bill jacket explains that without liability protection, professionals would not assist the Education Department in licensure cases, and that lack of expert support handicapped the Department's ability to protect the public from unlawful practitioners.

The AG had previously held in Formal Opinion 93-F5 that this coverage is read narrowly, a guideline the opinion expressly carries forward.

Citations

• Public Officers Law § 17, defense and indemnification of state employees, including the expert-witness exception to the independent-contractor exclusion.
• Education Law § 6510(7), repeating Education Department expert coverage and excluding actual-malice cases from indemnification.
• L 1980 Ch 866 and L 1981 Ch 228, the source of the 1980 and 1981 amendments extending coverage to consultants and expert witnesses.
• Formal Opinion No. 93-F5, AG's prior holding that defense-and-indemnification coverage is to be construed narrowly.

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/96-F5_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

Opn. No. 96-F5
EDUCATION LAW § 6510(7); PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW § 17; L 1981 CH 228; L 1980 CH 866.
Members of architectural and engineering professional associations who have served as auditors for
New York City under its "professional certification option" are entitled to defense and indemnification
by the State when they testify at the request of the Education Department at certain hearings to
determine charges of professional misconduct against engineers and architects.
April 2, 1996
Hon. Richard P. Mills Formal Opinion
Commissioner No. 96-F5
NYS Department of Education
Education Building
Albany, NY 12234
Dear Commissioner Mills:
Your counsel has asked whether the State will provide defense and indemnification under Public
Officers Law § 17 and Education Law § 6510(7) to a member of an architectural or engineering
professional association as to his or her service as a consultant or expert witness to your Department in
the investigation or prosecution of alleged professional misconduct. The possible misconduct was
discovered initially by the member in an audit done for New York City under its "professional
certification option" and reported by the New York City Department of Buildings to the Education
Department for possible prosecution.
New York City has established an alternative review process for approval of construction specifications
prepared under various City building regulations, referred to as the "professional certification option".
Generally, the owner of the project authorizes use of the "professional certification option" by the
licensed architect or engineer who has prepared the construction specifications. The licensed architect or
engineer files a complete set of construction specifications to comply with the particular City building
regulation and as required by the "professional certification option" states:
I hereby state that I have exercised a professional standard of care in certifying that the filed
application is complete and in accordance with applicable laws as of this date. I am aware
the Commissioner will rely upon the truth and accuracy of this statement. If non-compliance
is disclosed I agree to notify the owner of the remedial measures which must be taken to
meet Department of Buildings' requirements. I further realize that any misrepresentation or
falsification of facts made knowingly or negligently by me, my agents or employees or,
additionally, by others with my knowledge, will render me liable for legal and disciplinary
action by the Department of Buildings and other appropriate authorities including
termination of participation in the Professional Certification Program at the Department of
Buildings.
Within 45 days of the issuance of a permit, at least 20% of these certified applications, representing a
mixture of application types, will be subject to a complete audit plan review. The mixture selected for
review will be prioritized based upon public safety impact and anticipated completion date of
construction. A review will also be conducted at any time upon receipt of a complaint or evidence of
non-compliance. Applications chosen for audit will be assigned to an examiner who will review the

application consistent with established policy.
Your counsel has informed us that the audits will be done for New York City under the "professional
certification option" by members of architectural and engineering professional associations. Any
professional misconduct by the licensed architect or engineer revealed by the audits would be reported
by the New York City Department of Buildings to the Education Department for possible prosecution.
Your counsel's question is whether, after a complaint of possible professional misconduct has been filed
with the Education Department, the member of the architectural or engineering professional association,
who served as auditor under New York City's "professional certification option", is entitled to defense
and indemnification by the State as an expert witness for the Education Department in the hearing on the
charge of professional misconduct.
Section 17 of the Public Officers Law provides for defense and indemnification of an "employee" which
in part is defined to mean
any person holding a position by election, appointment or employment in the service of the
state . . . or a volunteer expressly authorized to participate in a state-sponsored volunteer
program, but shall not include an independent contractor.
Also included within the definition of "employee", as a specific exception to the exclusion of
independent contractors, are
persons who assist the education department or the department of health as consultants or
expert witnesses in the investigation or prosecution of alleged professional misconduct,
licensure matters, restoration proceedings, or criminal prosecutions for unauthorized
practice . . ..
The provision of defense and indemnification to experts assisting the Education Department is repeated
in section 6510(7) of the Education Law. Section 6510(7) adds the proviso that
indemnification does not include actions involving actual malice.
The amendment of the definition of "employee" to include expert witnesses assisting the Education
Department or Health Department in the investigation or prosecution of alleged professional misconduct
was enacted by chapter 866 of the Laws of 1980. Since this amendment was a part of a large legislative
proposal revising professional misconduct adjudication procedures, the legislative bill jacket is devoid
of any discussion of the amendment.
In 1981, however, chapter 228 again amended section 17 of the Public Officers Law to add defense and
indemnification of persons who assist the Education Department or the Health Department as
consultants or expert witnesses in the investigation or prosecution of licensure matters, restoration
proceedings, or criminal prosecutions for unauthorized practice. We believe that the legislative intent
underlying the 1981 amendment would also apply to the 1980 amendment regarding professional
misconduct. The 1981 legislative history reveals that the investigation and prosecution of licensure
matters often require the advice and assistance of experts knowledgeable in a particular profession or
area. Bill Jacket, L 1981, ch 228, November 15, 1980 Memorandum by Robert D. Stone, Counsel, State
Education Department regarding Departmental Legislative Proposal Number 32. While professional
societies expressed a willingness to cooperate with the Education Department to provide the necessary
experts, the experts themselves would not be protected from civil liability or against the costs of
defending nuisance suits and, therefore, were reluctant to serve under these circumstances. Id. Thus, the
absence of adequate protection for these experts impaired the ability of the Department to protect the
public from unlawful practitioners. Id.

The Education Department would utilize members of the architectural and engineering associations to
elicit testimony as to their findings while performing audits of contract specifications prepared for New
York City by the engineer or architect charged with professional misconduct. Your staff has informed us
that this testimony would include factual findings regarding deviation of these specifications from
program requirements. Further, testimony would be adduced as to whether the architect or engineer had
so deviated from expected professional practice as to have engaged in professional misconduct.
The general policy is to construe defense and indemnification coverage narrowly. Formal Opinion No.
93-F5. Thus, the coverage of consultants and experts serving the Education Department or the Health
Department should be construed narrowly. Id. Certainly, the ordinary witness called by the Education
Department in a professional misconduct hearing would not be eligible to receive defense and
indemnification under the limited statutory authorization. The members of the architectural and
engineering professional associations, however, would give testimony as to factual findings made in
their role as expert auditors utilized by New York City under the "professional certification option".
They would also give testimony as to whether the performance of the architect or engineer had so
deviated from accepted norms as to constitute professional misconduct. In so doing, they would be
serving as experts giving their views based on their professional experience in the field of architecture or
engineering. You have indicated that the goal of the Education Department is to encourage the full
cooperation of these experts who are uniquely situated to present this broad range of testimony. Under
these special circumstances, we believe that these members of architectural and engineering professional
associations would fall within the definition of "employee", as persons who assist the Education
Department as consultants or expert witnesses in the investigation or prosecution of alleged professional
misconduct.
We conclude that members of architectural and engineering professional associations who have served
as auditors for New York City under its "professional certification option" are entitled to defense and
indemnification by the State on the terms and conditions of Public Officers Law § 17 in any civil action
or proceeding arising out of any alleged act or omission which occurred or is alleged in the complaint to
have occurred when they testify at the request of the Education Department at hearings to determine
charges of professional misconduct against engineers and architects.
Very truly yours,

DENNIS C. VACCO
Attorney General