Matter of Doe v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Opinion

Matter of Doe v New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

2026 NY Slip Op 05101

August 26, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

In the Matter of John Doe, appellant,

v

New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 26, 2026

2023-07663, (Index No. 522609/22)

Mark C. Dillon, J.P.

Valerie Brathwaite Nelson

Deborah A. Dowling

Susan Quirk, JJ.

John Doe, Great Neck, NY, appellant pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Judith N. Vale and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondents.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated June 1, 2022, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Robin K. Sheares, J.), dated May 18, 2023. The order and judgment, insofar as appealed from, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner, a Hearing Officer and Administrative Law Judge employed by the respondent New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (hereinafter OTDA), was served with a notice of discipline by which the OTDA sought to terminate his employment based on 11 charges of misconduct and insubordination. The petitioner, represented by his union, filed a grievance, and the matter was disputed at an arbitration proceeding. In an award dated June 1, 2022, the arbitrator, inter alia, determined that the respondents followed the procedures mandated by a collective bargaining agreement with respect to the issuance of the notice of discipline, rejected the petitioner's challenge to the respondents' service of the notice of discipline as untimely, determined that termination of the petitioner's employment was the appropriate penalty, and denied the grievance. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate the arbitration award. In an order and judgment dated May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.

"'Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited'" (Matter of Henry v New York State Workers' Compensation Bd., 230 AD3d 1241, 1242, quoting Matter of Barella v State of New York Off. of Mental Health, 175 AD3d 495, 496). "It is well settled that a court may vacate an arbitration award only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power" (Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530, 534; see CPLR 7511[b][1][iii]; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers' Union of Am., Local 100, ALF-CIO, 6 NY3d 332, 336; Matter of Henry v New York State Workers' Compensation Bd., 230 AD3d at 1242).

Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, he failed to demonstrate that the arbitration award violated a strong public policy, was irrational, or clearly exceeded a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator's power (see CPLR 7511[b][1][iii]; Matter of City of Peekskill v Local 456, Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters, 49 AD3d 730, 731). Moreover, the petitioner failed to present evidentiary proof of actual bias or the appearance of bias on the part of the arbitrator, and the award discloses no bias (see CPLR 7511[b][1][ii]; Matter of Tauber v Gross, 216 AD3d 1066, 1068; Matter of Heller v Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 154 AD3d 754, 755), and the penalty of termination was not so disproportionate to the offenses charged as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see Matter of Bolt v New York City Dept. of Educ., 30 NY3d 1065, 1068; Matter of Russo v New York City Dept. of Educ., 25 NY3d 946, 948; Matter of Henry v New York State Workers' Compensation Bd., 230 AD3d at 1242).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.

DILLON, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, DOWLING and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court