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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

136 A.D.3d 600, 25 N.Y.S.3d 602

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 25, 2016·No. 653397/13 330 329·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered November 13, 2014, which, upon reargument, granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred and to confirm the arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 18, 2014, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The petition was filed more than 90 days after the arbitration award was delivered to petitioner’s union, his designated representative; accordingly, it is time-barred (CPLR 7511 [a]; Matter of Case v Monroe Community Coll., 89 NY2d 438, 443 [1997]).

Even if the petition were timely, petitioner lacks standing to seek vacatur of the arbitration award (see Chupka v Lorenz-Schneider Co., 12 NY2d 1, 6 [1962], appeal dismissed 372 US 227 [1963]).

We dismiss the appeal from the June 18, 2014 order. That order was superseded by the order entered November 13, 2014.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe 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 (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered November 13, 2014, which, upon reargument, granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition as time-barred and to confirm the arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 18, 2014, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The petition was filed more than 90 days after the arbitration award was delivered to petitioner’s union, his designated representative; accordingly, it is time-barred (CPLR 7511 [a]; Matter of Case v Monroe Community Coll., 89 NY2d 438, 443 [1997]).

Even if the petition were timely, petitioner lacks standing to seek vacatur of the arbitration award (see Chupka v Lorenz-Schneider Co., 12 NY2d 1, 6 [1962], appeal dismissed 372 US 227 [1963]).

We dismiss the appeal from the June 18, 2014 order. That order was superseded by the order entered November 13, 2014.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe and Gische, JJ.

Matter of Klugerman v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 136 A.D.3d 600, 25 N.Y.S.3d 602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

136 A.D.3d 600 (Matter of Klugerman v. New York City Dept. of Educ.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related