De Ciutiis v. East Meadow Union Free School District No. 3

87 A.D.2d 840, 449 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16312

This text of 87 A.D.2d 840 (De Ciutiis v. East Meadow Union Free School District No. 3) 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
De Ciutiis v. East Meadow Union Free School District No. 3, 87 A.D.2d 840, 449 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to declare void and unlawful a contract provision between respondents school district and teachers association which allegedly provides for the withholding and deferral of salary, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burstein, J.), entered February 27, 1981, which dismissed the petition. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting the provision dismissing the petition, and substituting therefor provisions (1) converting this proceeding into an action for a declaratory judgment and related relief and (2) declaring that the contested contract provision is valid, and otherwise dismissing the action. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Since the issue raised by petitioners requires us to determine whether a provision of the collective bargaining agreement violates the Constitution and/or the Education Law, this CPLR article 78 proceeding should be converted to an action for a declaratory judgment (see Matter of Reese v Lombard, 47 AD2d 327; cf. 92-07 [841]*841Rest, v New York State Liq. Auth., 80 AD2d 603). We determine that the matter in question is a term and condition of employment properly subject to negotiation between the respondent school district and the respondent teachers association (see Matter of Board ofEduc. v Yonkers Federation of Teachers, 40 NY2d 268, 273). The resulting contract provision does not conflict with statute, decisional law, or public policy, nor is it impermissibly vague (see Matter of Board of Educ. v Nyquist, 48 NY2d 97, 104-105). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Board of Education v. Yonkers Federation of Teachers
353 N.E.2d 569 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
Board of Education v. Nyquist
397 N.E.2d 365 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
Reese v. Lombard
47 A.D.2d 327 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
92-07 Restaurant, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
80 A.D.2d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 A.D.2d 840, 449 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-ciutiis-v-east-meadow-union-free-school-district-no-3-nyappdiv-1982.