Caruso v. MacDonald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caruso v. MacDonald

169 A.D.2d 644, 564 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 586

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 A.D.2d 644 (Caruso v. MacDonald) 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

Caruso v. MacDonald, 169 A.D.2d 644, 564 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 586 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered October 30, 1989, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging a decision of the respondent Board of Collective Bargaining dated March 30, 1989, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Due to a scheduling conflict, a number of Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (PBA) members who had intended to take a promotional examination at 8:30 a.m. were required to take it at 10:30 a.m., allegedly losing two hours of swing time between shifts. On behalf of these officers, the PBA seeks to arbitrate a grievance for overtime, which may be obtained pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement only where work is ordered or authorized by the Police Department. Because there is a rational basis for the Collective Bargaining Board’s conclusion that the two hours spent sitting for the examination were not ordered and/or authorized by the Police Department, and because it is appropriate to defer to the expertise of the Collective Bargaining Board, petitioners’ article 78 proceeding was properly dismissed. (Matter of Caruso v Anderson, 138 Misc 2d 719, 720, affd 145 AD2d 1004, lv denied 73 NY2d 709.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered October 30, 1989, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging a decision of the respondent Board of Collective Bargaining dated March 30, 1989, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Due to a scheduling conflict, a number of Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (PBA) members who had intended to take a promotional examination at 8:30 a.m. were required to take it at 10:30 a.m., allegedly losing two hours of swing time between shifts. On behalf of these officers, the PBA seeks to arbitrate a grievance for overtime, which may be obtained pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement only where work is ordered or authorized by the Police Department. Because there is a rational basis for the Collective Bargaining Board’s conclusion that the two hours spent sitting for the examination were not ordered and/or authorized by the Police Department, and because it is appropriate to defer to the expertise of the Collective Bargaining Board, petitioners’ article 78 proceeding was properly dismissed. (Matter of Caruso v Anderson, 138 Misc 2d 719, 720, affd 145 AD2d 1004, lv denied 73 NY2d 709.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 644, 564 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caruso-v-macdonald-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack