Board of Education of Pine Plains Central School District v. Pine Plains Federation of Educators, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Education of Pine Plains Central School District v. Pine Plains Federation of Educators, Inc.

248 A.D.2d 612, 669 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2886

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 612 (Board of Education of Pine Plains Central School District v. Pine Plains Federation of Educators, Inc.) 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

Board of Education of Pine Plains Central School District v. Pine Plains Federation of Educators, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 612, 669 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated December 20, 1996, which denied the petition “in all respects” and directed the parties “to proceed to arbitration of the subject contractual dispute”.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the words: “in all respects” and substituting therefor the words: “with respect to the alleged violation of Article V, Section D of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, effective July 1, 1992 — June 30, 1997, and the petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration is granted with respect to the alleged violation of the provisions of a Supplemental Memorandum of [613]*613Agreement between the parties, dated July 1988”; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The respondent sought arbitration, inter alia, of an alleged violation of the provisions of a 1988 “Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding” (hereinafter the Supplemental Memorandum) between the parties. However, the Supplemental Memorandum does not contain an arbitration clause and was not incorporated into or made part of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties in effect for the period July 1, 1992, to June 30, 1997.

In the absence of a valid and specific agreement between the parties evidencing an intent to arbitrate claims under the Supplemental Memorandum, the petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration should have been granted with respect to the respondent’s demand to arbitrate claims pursuant to the Supplemental Memorandum (see, Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1, 7; County of Rockland v Rockland County Unit of Rockland Community Coll. Fedn. of Teachers, 125 AD2d 531; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Roseboro, 247 AD2d 379).

The petitioner’s remaining argument is without merit.

Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated December 20, 1996, which denied the petition “in all respects” and directed the parties “to proceed to arbitration of the subject contractual dispute”.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the words: “in all respects” and substituting therefor the words: “with respect to the alleged violation of Article V, Section D of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, effective July 1, 1992 — June 30, 1997, and the petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration is granted with respect to the alleged violation of the provisions of a Supplemental Memorandum of [613]*613Agreement between the parties, dated July 1988”; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The respondent sought arbitration, inter alia, of an alleged violation of the provisions of a 1988 “Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding” (hereinafter the Supplemental Memorandum) between the parties. However, the Supplemental Memorandum does not contain an arbitration clause and was not incorporated into or made part of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties in effect for the period July 1, 1992, to June 30, 1997.

In the absence of a valid and specific agreement between the parties evidencing an intent to arbitrate claims under the Supplemental Memorandum, the petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration should have been granted with respect to the respondent’s demand to arbitrate claims pursuant to the Supplemental Memorandum (see, Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1, 7; County of Rockland v Rockland County Unit of Rockland Community Coll. Fedn. of Teachers, 125 AD2d 531; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Roseboro, 247 AD2d 379).

The petitioner’s remaining argument is without merit.

Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 612, 669 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-education-of-pine-plains-central-school-district-v-pine-plains-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack