Cox v. Subway Surface Supervisors Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cox v. Subway Surface Supervisors Ass'n

69 A.D.3d 438, 891 N.Y.2d 277

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.3d 438 (Cox v. Subway Surface Supervisors 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

Cox v. Subway Surface Supervisors Ass'n, 69 A.D.3d 438, 891 N.Y.2d 277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation against defendant Association. At the time defendants negotiated and ratified the collective bargaining agreement at issue, plaintiffs were employed as console dispatchers in defendant Transit Authority’s Rail Command Center. It is uncontested that they were neither members of, nor represented by, the Association’s bargaining unit, so the Association owed them no duty of fair representation. Even were such a duty owed, the Association did not act arbitrarily, capriciously or in bad faith by protecting the “pick seniority” of its current members (see Matter of Civil Serv. Bar Assn., Local 237, Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters v City of New York, 64 NY2d 188, 195-196 [1984]; Matter of Higgins v La Paglia, 281 AD2d 679, 681 [2001], appeal dismissed 96 NY2d 854 [2001]).

The claim against the Transit Authority, which is in the nature of mandamus, is untimely and fails to assert a clear legal right to the relief requested (see Matter of Powers v City of New York, 262 AD2d 246 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 751 [1999]). In any event, since there was no breach of duty by the Association, the claim that the Transit Authority was in complicity with that breach must fail. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Renwick and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2008 NY Slip Op 32071(U).]

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

Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation against defendant Association. At the time defendants negotiated and ratified the collective bargaining agreement at issue, plaintiffs were employed as console dispatchers in defendant Transit Authority’s Rail Command Center. It is uncontested that they were neither members of, nor represented by, the Association’s bargaining unit, so the Association owed them no duty of fair representation. Even were such a duty owed, the Association did not act arbitrarily, capriciously or in bad faith by protecting the “pick seniority” of its current members (see Matter of Civil Serv. Bar Assn., Local 237, Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters v City of New York, 64 NY2d 188, 195-196 [1984]; Matter of Higgins v La Paglia, 281 AD2d 679, 681 [2001], appeal dismissed 96 NY2d 854 [2001]).

The claim against the Transit Authority, which is in the nature of mandamus, is untimely and fails to assert a clear legal right to the relief requested (see Matter of Powers v City of New York, 262 AD2d 246 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 751 [1999]). In any event, since there was no breach of duty by the Association, the claim that the Transit Authority was in complicity with that breach must fail. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Renwick and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2008 NY Slip Op 32071(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 438, 891 N.Y.2d 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-subway-surface-supervisors-assn-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack