Gregg v. Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gregg v. Department of Education

22 A.D.3d 254, 801 N.Y.S.2d 529

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 254 (Gregg v. Department 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

Gregg v. Department of Education, 22 A.D.3d 254, 801 N.Y.S.2d 529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[255]*255Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered February 10, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75 to, inter alia, vacate portions of an arbitration determination dated October 20, 2004, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We discern no ground upon which the challenged portions of the arbitration determination might be disturbed. They do not violate a strong public policy, are not irrational, and there is no basis to conclude that the arbitrator, in making the award, exceeded any of the specifically enumerated limitations on his power set forth in CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (see Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 79 [2003]; Matter of Rice v Jamaica Energy Partners L.P., 13 AD3d 255 [2004]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

[255]*255Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered February 10, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75 to, inter alia, vacate portions of an arbitration determination dated October 20, 2004, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We discern no ground upon which the challenged portions of the arbitration determination might be disturbed. They do not violate a strong public policy, are not irrational, and there is no basis to conclude that the arbitrator, in making the award, exceeded any of the specifically enumerated limitations on his power set forth in CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (see Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 79 [2003]; Matter of Rice v Jamaica Energy Partners L.P., 13 AD3d 255 [2004]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 254, 801 N.Y.S.2d 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregg-v-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack