Majority
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-
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacos a concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Cases cited
- Easterson v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center 156 AD2d 636 p. 802
- Kern v. DePaul Mental Health Services, Inc. 152 AD2d 957 p. 802
- Leibowitz v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. 152 AD2d 169 at 175-177 p. 802
- Vella v. United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, Inc. 141 Misc 2d 976 p. 802
- Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc. 69 NY2d 329 at 336 p. 803