County of Suffolk v. Suffolk Chapter, Civil Service Employees Ass'n

86 A.D.2d 892, 447 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15552
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 22, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 A.D.2d 892 (County of Suffolk v. Suffolk Chapter, Civil Service Employees Ass'n) 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
County of Suffolk v. Suffolk Chapter, Civil Service Employees Ass'n, 86 A.D.2d 892, 447 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

In a proceeding to vacate an arbitration award, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Thom, J.), dated May 27, 1981, which granted petitioner’s application to vacate. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, application denied and the award is reinstated. Initiation of arbitration by the particular type of notice of intent prescribed in CPLR 7503 (subd [c]) is not a prerequisite for a party wishing to stay arbitration under CPLR 7503 (subd [b]). (See Matter of Napolitano [Motor Vehicle Acc. Ind. Corp.], 26 AD2d 757; Matter of Double E Food Markets v Beatson, 18 AD2d 976.) Rather, the filing of the notice under subdivision (c) merely initiates a limitations period of 20 days in which a party seeking a stay must raise those grounds provided for in subdivision (b). However, filing of the notice of intent, while advisable, is not mandatory in light of the use of the permissive “may” in subdivision (c). Therefore, the arbitrator’s decision, that appellant need not have filed the type of notice provided under subdivision (c), did not contravene the public policy of allowing parties opposed to arbitration to seek a stay under subdivision (b). (See Binghamton Civ. Serv. Forum v City of Binghamton, 44 NY2d 23, 28-29.) Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

UNIFIRST CORPORATION v. STRONGER COLLISION CENTER, LLC
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 A.D.2d 892, 447 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-of-suffolk-v-suffolk-chapter-civil-service-employees-assn-nyappdiv-1982.