In re the Arbitration between Kaufman & New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Kaufman & New York City Transit Authority

191 A.D.2d 283, 595 N.Y.S.2d 34

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 283 (In re the Arbitration between Kaufman & New York City Transit Authority) 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 the Arbitration between Kaufman & New York City Transit Authority, 191 A.D.2d 283, 595 N.Y.S.2d 34 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered October 28, 1992, confirming an arbitration award vacating petitioner’s dismissal and imposing a 15-day suspension without back pay, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner contends that the award should be vacated insofar as it denied him back pay for the period of his dismissal. The contract provisions on which he relies provide that the arbitrator is without authority to add to, delete from, or modify any of the provisions of the agreement, and that an [284]*284aggrieved employee may not be dismissed prior to the completion of disciplinary proceedings. There is, however, nothing in the agreement which provides for back pay and petitioner has failed to establish a viable basis pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) that would warrant vacating the award.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.), entered October 28, 1992, confirming an arbitration award vacating petitioner’s dismissal and imposing a 15-day suspension without back pay, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner contends that the award should be vacated insofar as it denied him back pay for the period of his dismissal. The contract provisions on which he relies provide that the arbitrator is without authority to add to, delete from, or modify any of the provisions of the agreement, and that an [284]*284aggrieved employee may not be dismissed prior to the completion of disciplinary proceedings. There is, however, nothing in the agreement which provides for back pay and petitioner has failed to establish a viable basis pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) that would warrant vacating the award.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 283, 595 N.Y.S.2d 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-kaufman-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1993.