In re Arbitration between Prue & City of Syracuse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Arbitration between Prue & City of Syracuse

201 A.D.2d 894, 607 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2061

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 894 (In re Arbitration between Prue & City of Syracuse) 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

In re Arbitration between Prue & City of Syracuse, 201 A.D.2d 894, 607 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, petition denied and award confirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in vacating the arbitrator’s award. The award has a rational basis and is not arbitrary and capricious (see, Caso v Coffey, 41 NY2d 153, 158; see generally, Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v State of New York, 75 NY2d 175). Additionally, the arbitrator properly considered the criteria enumerated in the Taylor Law (Civil Service Law § 209 [4] [c] [v]; cf., Matter of Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn. v City of Buffalo, 82 AD2d 635) and set forth, with the requisite specificity, the basis for his findings in making his award. We reject petitioner’s assertion that a municipality necessarily has the ability to pay the increased wages sought unless it has exhausted its constitutional taxing limit. Moreover, contrary to Supreme Court’s findings, we conclude that the arbitrator’s award is not internally inconsistent.

The issue whether the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his [895]*895authority by making a determination regarding a nonmandatory subject of bargaining and by imposing punitive damages is moot because those conditions precedent expired by passage of time on December 31, 1992, and a consideration of those issues would be inappropriate because "the rights of the parties will [not] be directly affected by the determination of the appeal” (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714). In light of our determination, we do not address the remaining contentions of the parties. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — Arbitration.) Present — Denman, P. J., Callahan, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, petition denied and award confirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in vacating the arbitrator’s award. The award has a rational basis and is not arbitrary and capricious (see, Caso v Coffey, 41 NY2d 153, 158; see generally, Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v State of New York, 75 NY2d 175). Additionally, the arbitrator properly considered the criteria enumerated in the Taylor Law (Civil Service Law § 209 [4] [c] [v]; cf., Matter of Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn. v City of Buffalo, 82 AD2d 635) and set forth, with the requisite specificity, the basis for his findings in making his award. We reject petitioner’s assertion that a municipality necessarily has the ability to pay the increased wages sought unless it has exhausted its constitutional taxing limit. Moreover, contrary to Supreme Court’s findings, we conclude that the arbitrator’s award is not internally inconsistent.

The issue whether the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his [895]*895authority by making a determination regarding a nonmandatory subject of bargaining and by imposing punitive damages is moot because those conditions precedent expired by passage of time on December 31, 1992, and a consideration of those issues would be inappropriate because "the rights of the parties will [not] be directly affected by the determination of the appeal” (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714). In light of our determination, we do not address the remaining contentions of the parties. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — Arbitration.) Present — Denman, P. J., Callahan, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 894, 607 N.Y.S.2d 756, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-arbitration-between-prue-city-of-syracuse-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack