In Re the Arbitration Between Widrick & Carpinelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In Re the Arbitration Between Widrick & Carpinelli

2017 NY Slip Op 7821, 155 A.D.3d 1564, 63 N.Y.S.3d 285

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2017

Docket1169 CA 17-00698

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7821 (In Re the Arbitration Between Widrick & Carpinelli) 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 Widrick & Carpinelli, 2017 NY Slip Op 7821, 155 A.D.3d 1564, 63 N.Y.S.3d 285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Lewis County (Charles C. Merrell, J.), entered January 10, 2017. The order denied the motion of respondents to dismiss the petition and granted the petition to compel arbitration.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 75 proceeding seeking to compel arbitration of a purported grievance arising from the termination of her employment with respondent Lewis County Sheriffs Department. We agree with respondents that Supreme Court erred in granting the petition and in denying their motion to dismiss the petition. Pursuant to the express terms of the collective bargaining agreement between petitioner’s union and the County of Lewis, only the union had the right to demand arbitration of a grievance arising from a dispute involving her employment. Here, the union made no demand for arbitration, and petitioner’s demand for arbitration had no legal effect (see County of Westchester v Mahoney, 56 NY2d 756, 758 [1982]; Matter of Gonzalez v County of Orange Dept. of Social Servs., 250 AD2d 849, 850 [2d Dept 1998]; East Ramapo Cent. School Dist. v Symanski, 90 AD2d 821, 821-822 [2d Dept 1982]).

Present—Whalen, P.J., Centra, Lindley, Troutman and Winslow, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Lewis County (Charles C. Merrell, J.), entered January 10, 2017. The order denied the motion of respondents to dismiss the petition and granted the petition to compel arbitration.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 75 proceeding seeking to compel arbitration of a purported grievance arising from the termination of her employment with respondent Lewis County Sheriffs Department. We agree with respondents that Supreme Court erred in granting the petition and in denying their motion to dismiss the petition. Pursuant to the express terms of the collective bargaining agreement between petitioner’s union and the County of Lewis, only the union had the right to demand arbitration of a grievance arising from a dispute involving her employment. Here, the union made no demand for arbitration, and petitioner’s demand for arbitration had no legal effect (see County of Westchester v Mahoney, 56 NY2d 756, 758 [1982]; Matter of Gonzalez v County of Orange Dept. of Social Servs., 250 AD2d 849, 850 [2d Dept 1998]; East Ramapo Cent. School Dist. v Symanski, 90 AD2d 821, 821-822 [2d Dept 1982]).

Present—Whalen, P.J., Centra, Lindley, Troutman and Winslow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7821, 155 A.D.3d 1564, 63 N.Y.S.3d 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-widrick-carpinelli-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack