Matter of Clarke v. New York City Dept. of Educ.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Clarke v. New York City Dept. of Educ.

2016 NY Slip Op 7600, 144 A.D.3d 500, 40 N.Y.S.3d 763

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 2016·No. 2204 652634/13·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered September 22, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, summarily granted the petition to vacate the arbitrator’s opinion and award finding that petitioner engaged in serious misconduct, and remitted the case for a hearing before a different hearing officer, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the grant of the petition vacated, the opinion and award reinstated, and the matter remanded with instructions that respondent be permitted to serve an answer.

The order appealed from should be reversed insofar as it granted the petition without affording respondent the opportunity to serve and file an answer pursuant to CPLR 404 (a), in which it may address allegations that, inter alia, the arbitration award was procured through fraud or misconduct (see Matter of Cline v Donovan, 72 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2010]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments, and find them unavailing.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered September 22, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, summarily granted the petition to vacate the arbitrator’s opinion and award finding that petitioner engaged in serious misconduct, and remitted the case for a hearing before a different hearing officer, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the grant of the petition vacated, the opinion and award reinstated, and the matter remanded with instructions that respondent be permitted to serve an answer.

The order appealed from should be reversed insofar as it granted the petition without affording respondent the opportunity to serve and file an answer pursuant to CPLR 404 (a), in which it may address allegations that, inter alia, the arbitration award was procured through fraud or misconduct (see Matter of Cline v Donovan, 72 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2010]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments, and find them unavailing.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Matter of Clarke v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 2016 NY Slip Op 7600, 144 A.D.3d 500, 40 N.Y.S.3d 763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

2016 NY Slip Op 7600 (Matter of Clarke v. New York City Dept. of Educ.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related