Battaglia v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Battaglia v. New York City Transit Authority

225 A.D.2d 384, 638 N.Y.2d 663, 638 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2267

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 14, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 384 (Battaglia v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Battaglia v. New York City Transit Authority, 225 A.D.2d 384, 638 N.Y.2d 663, 638 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[385]*385The requirement that the petitioner submit to a return-to-work drug test pursuant to the respondent’s Drug Policy and Instruction, agreed to by the petitioner’s union in the applicable collective bargaining agreement, contrary to the finding of the trial court, was not unconstitutional. Certain constitutional rights of individual public employees represented by collective bargaining agents may be waived by the consent of those agents (Matter of Briggs v Stangl, 222 AD2d 672, 673, citing, Antinore v State of New York, 49 AD2d 6, 10, affd 40 NY2d 921; Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn. v City of Buffalo, 20 PERB ¶ 3048; Bolden v Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 953 F2d 807, 828, cert denied 504 US 943). Consequently, the second random recheck consented to by the petitioner himself in a written agreement was not tainted by any constitutional infirmity. Given the valid consent of the petitioner’s union to the drug tests in question, the constitutional issues which might otherwise provide a basis for vacatur of the award are not implicated herein. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[385]*385The requirement that the petitioner submit to a return-to-work drug test pursuant to the respondent’s Drug Policy and Instruction, agreed to by the petitioner’s union in the applicable collective bargaining agreement, contrary to the finding of the trial court, was not unconstitutional. Certain constitutional rights of individual public employees represented by collective bargaining agents may be waived by the consent of those agents (Matter of Briggs v Stangl, 222 AD2d 672, 673, citing, Antinore v State of New York, 49 AD2d 6, 10, affd 40 NY2d 921; Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn. v City of Buffalo, 20 PERB ¶ 3048; Bolden v Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 953 F2d 807, 828, cert denied 504 US 943). Consequently, the second random recheck consented to by the petitioner himself in a written agreement was not tainted by any constitutional infirmity. Given the valid consent of the petitioner’s union to the drug tests in question, the constitutional issues which might otherwise provide a basis for vacatur of the award are not implicated herein. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 384, 638 N.Y.2d 663, 638 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battaglia-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack