Board of Education, Lakeland Central School District of Shrub Oak v. Lakeland Federation of Teachers, Local 1760

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Education, Lakeland Central School District of Shrub Oak v. Lakeland Federation of Teachers, Local 1760

54 A.D.2d 571, 387 N.Y.S.2d 441, 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2496, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13906

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 27, 1976·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding to vacate a demand for arbitration and to stay arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 22, 1975, which granted the application. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, proceeding dismissed on the merits, and the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration forthwith. No fact questions were presented by this appeal. The provisions in the collective bargaining agreement do not show a clear intention to exclude the subject matter in dispute from arbitration (see Steelworkers v Warrior & Gulf Co., 363 US 574; Matter of Susquehanna Val. Cent. School Dist. at Conklin [Susquehanna Val. Teachers’■ Assn.] 37 NY2d 614). Moreover, there is no statute or controlling decisional law or other source of public policy which would prohibit the arbitration of this dispute (see Matter of Board of Educ. v Yonkers Federation of Teachers, 40 NY2d 268). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to vacate a demand for arbitration and to stay arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 22, 1975, which granted the application. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, proceeding dismissed on the merits, and the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration forthwith. No fact questions were presented by this appeal. The provisions in the collective bargaining agreement do not show a clear intention to exclude the subject matter in dispute from arbitration (see Steelworkers v Warrior & Gulf Co., 363 US 574; Matter of Susquehanna Val. Cent. School Dist. at Conklin [Susquehanna Val. Teachers’■ Assn.] 37 NY2d 614). Moreover, there is no statute or controlling decisional law or other source of public policy which would prohibit the arbitration of this dispute (see Matter of Board of Educ. v Yonkers Federation of Teachers, 40 NY2d 268). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Board of Education, Lakeland Central School District of Shrub Oak v. Lakeland Federation of Teachers, Local 1760, 54 A.D.2d 571, 387 N.Y.S.2d 441, 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2496, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

54 A.D.2d 571 (Board of Education, Lakeland Central School District of Shrub Oak v. Lakeland Federation of Teachers, Local 1760) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related