Crowley v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crowley v. Board of Education

128 A.D.2d 871, 513 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44549

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 871 (Crowley v. Board of Education) 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

Crowley v. Board of Education, 128 A.D.2d 871, 513 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to her former position, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Stolarik, J.), dated March 18, 1986, which dismissed her petition, and granted the respondent’s cross petition to confirm a prior arbitration award.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It appears from the record that Special Term correctly ruled that litigation of the petitioner’s claim was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel since the issue of whether the termination of her services as a teacher violated her rights under Education Law § 2585 (3) had been previously raised at, argued before, and resolved by, the arbitrator in the respondent’s favor. Moreover, disputes as to matters arising from or involving the above statute are not barred from submission to arbitration (see, Board of Educ. v Glaubman, 53 NY2d 781).

We further find that the respondent’s cross petition to confirm the arbitrator’s award was properly granted since, regardless of whether or not he misapplied Education Law § 2585, the arbitrator’s award was not irrational, did not violate a strong public policy, and did not exceed a specifically [872]*872enumerated limitation on his power (see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308; Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 629-630). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to her former position, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Stolarik, J.), dated March 18, 1986, which dismissed her petition, and granted the respondent’s cross petition to confirm a prior arbitration award.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It appears from the record that Special Term correctly ruled that litigation of the petitioner’s claim was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel since the issue of whether the termination of her services as a teacher violated her rights under Education Law § 2585 (3) had been previously raised at, argued before, and resolved by, the arbitrator in the respondent’s favor. Moreover, disputes as to matters arising from or involving the above statute are not barred from submission to arbitration (see, Board of Educ. v Glaubman, 53 NY2d 781).

We further find that the respondent’s cross petition to confirm the arbitrator’s award was properly granted since, regardless of whether or not he misapplied Education Law § 2585, the arbitrator’s award was not irrational, did not violate a strong public policy, and did not exceed a specifically [872]*872enumerated limitation on his power (see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308; Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 629-630). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 871, 513 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowley-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack