In re the Arbitration between Livingston County & Civil Service Employees Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Livingston County & Civil Service Employees Ass'n

101 A.D.3d 1697, 956 N.Y.2d 774

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 1697 (In re the Arbitration between Livingston County & Civil Service Employees Ass'n) 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 Livingston County & Civil Service Employees Ass'n, 101 A.D.3d 1697, 956 N.Y.2d 774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order denying the petition to stay arbitration in this CPLR article 75 proceeding. Petitioner and respondents are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and were involved in a grievance that proceeded through various steps in the grievance process and ultimately resulted in petitioner’s denial of the grievance by a written decision issued on October 4, 2011. Respondents gave petitioner notice of intent to submit the grievance to arbitration by letter dated October 27, 2011, which was received by the Livingston County Administrator on October 28, 2011.

Pursuant to article 24, section 1 of the CBA, “[Compliance with the time limits for submitting a notice of intent to arbitrate . . . shall be a condition precedent to arbitration. Failure to submit a notice of intent to submit a grievance to arbitration . . . shall thus bar the grievance from proceeding to arbitration.” That section further provides that respondents must notify petitioner of their intent to submit a grievance to arbitration no later than 15 working days after a written decision was issued at the second step of the grievance process. Petitioner sought a stay of arbitration based on respondents’ failure to comply with that notice requirement, and Supreme Court denied the petition. That was error. Although the CBA here contains a broad arbitration agreement, the CBA also contains an express provision establishing the condition precedent at issue (see Matter of Kachris [Sterling], 239 AD2d 887, 887-888 [1997]; see also Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1, 7-8 [1980]). Where, as here, the condition precedent is expressly made part of the CBA, the issue of compliance with the condition is for the court in the first instance (see Matter of Raisler Corp. [New York City Hous. Auth.], 32 NY2d 274, 279 [1973]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey, Carni and Martoche, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order denying the petition to stay arbitration in this CPLR article 75 proceeding. Petitioner and respondents are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and were involved in a grievance that proceeded through various steps in the grievance process and ultimately resulted in petitioner’s denial of the grievance by a written decision issued on October 4, 2011. Respondents gave petitioner notice of intent to submit the grievance to arbitration by letter dated October 27, 2011, which was received by the Livingston County Administrator on October 28, 2011.

Pursuant to article 24, section 1 of the CBA, “[Compliance with the time limits for submitting a notice of intent to arbitrate . . . shall be a condition precedent to arbitration. Failure to submit a notice of intent to submit a grievance to arbitration . . . shall thus bar the grievance from proceeding to arbitration.” That section further provides that respondents must notify petitioner of their intent to submit a grievance to arbitration no later than 15 working days after a written decision was issued at the second step of the grievance process. Petitioner sought a stay of arbitration based on respondents’ failure to comply with that notice requirement, and Supreme Court denied the petition. That was error. Although the CBA here contains a broad arbitration agreement, the CBA also contains an express provision establishing the condition precedent at issue (see Matter of Kachris [Sterling], 239 AD2d 887, 887-888 [1997]; see also Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1, 7-8 [1980]). Where, as here, the condition precedent is expressly made part of the CBA, the issue of compliance with the condition is for the court in the first instance (see Matter of Raisler Corp. [New York City Hous. Auth.], 32 NY2d 274, 279 [1973]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey, Carni and Martoche, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 1697, 956 N.Y.2d 774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-livingston-county-civil-service-employees-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack