Matter of Transport Workers Union of Greater N.Y., Local 100, AFL-CIO v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Transport Workers Union of Greater N.Y., Local 100, AFL-CIO v. New York City Tr. Auth.

2017 NY Slip Op 5229, 151 A.D.3d 1067, 54 N.Y.S.3d 590

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

DecidedJune 28, 2017

Docket2016-02604

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5229 (Matter of Transport Workers Union of Greater N.Y., Local 100, AFL-CIO v. New York City Tr. Auth.) 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

Matter of Transport Workers Union of Greater N.Y., Local 100, AFL-CIO v. New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 5229, 151 A.D.3d 1067, 54 N.Y.S.3d 590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jimenez-Salta, J.), dated November 6, 2015, which denied the petition and confirmed the award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although judicial review of arbitration awards is limited (see Matter of Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v County of Westchester, 81 AD3d 966, 967 [2011]), an award will be vacated when the arbitrator making the *1068 award “so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made” (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]; see Matter of Andrews v County of Rockland, 120 AD3d 1227, 1228 [2014]). An award will be vacated as indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR 7511 if it does not “dispose of a particular issue raised by the parties” (Hamilton Partners v Singer, 290 AD2d 316, 316 [2002]; see Matter of Andrews v County of Rockland, 120 AD3d at 1228), or “ ‘if it leaves the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations, if it does not resolve the controversy submitted or if it creates a new controversy’ ” (Matter of Westchester County Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v Cheverko, 112 AD3d 840, 841 [2013], quoting Matter of Meisels v Uhr, 79 NY2d 526, 536 [1992]).

Here, contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the arbitrator’s award did not leave any matter submitted by the parties open for future contention, and thus, it was definite and final (see Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v County of Nassau, 305 AD2d 498, 499 [2003]; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Steiner, 227 AD2d 563, 564 [1996]; cf. Matter of Delaney Group, Inc. [Holmgren Enters., Inc.], 126 AD3d 1212, 1216 [2015]).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Chambers, J.P., Miller, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jimenez-Salta, J.), dated November 6, 2015, which denied the petition and confirmed the award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although judicial review of arbitration awards is limited (see Matter of Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v County of Westchester, 81 AD3d 966, 967 [2011]), an award will be vacated when the arbitrator making the *1068 award “so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made” (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]; see Matter of Andrews v County of Rockland, 120 AD3d 1227, 1228 [2014]). An award will be vacated as indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR 7511 if it does not “dispose of a particular issue raised by the parties” (Hamilton Partners v Singer, 290 AD2d 316, 316 [2002]; see Matter of Andrews v County of Rockland, 120 AD3d at 1228), or “ ‘if it leaves the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations, if it does not resolve the controversy submitted or if it creates a new controversy’ ” (Matter of Westchester County Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v Cheverko, 112 AD3d 840, 841 [2013], quoting Matter of Meisels v Uhr, 79 NY2d 526, 536 [1992]).

Here, contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the arbitrator’s award did not leave any matter submitted by the parties open for future contention, and thus, it was definite and final (see Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v County of Nassau, 305 AD2d 498, 499 [2003]; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Steiner, 227 AD2d 563, 564 [1996]; cf. Matter of Delaney Group, Inc. [Holmgren Enters., Inc.], 126 AD3d 1212, 1216 [2015]).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Chambers, J.P., Miller, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5229, 151 A.D.3d 1067, 54 N.Y.S.3d 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-transport-workers-union-of-greater-ny-local-100-afl-cio-v-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack