Okpo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Okpo v. City of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 9272, 156 A.D.3d 587, 65 N.Y.S.3d 701

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2017

Docket5314 162461/14

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 9272 (Okpo v. City of New York) 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

Okpo v. City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 9272, 156 A.D.3d 587, 65 N.Y.S.3d 701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered on or about December 6, 2016, which denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, and granted defendants-respondents’ (the Union) cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As a probationary employee, plaintiff’s termination was not the basis for a “grievance” under the governing collective bargaining agreement (CBA). As such, the Union owed her no duty of fair representation (see Portlette v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 25 AD3d 389, 391 [1st Dept 2006]).

Even assuming that the Union owed her a duty here, it would nonetheless have had no duty to initiate a CPLR article 78 proceeding on her behalf. The duty of fair representation is rooted in the bargaining agent’s exclusive statutory authority to pursue grievances on behalf of covered employees under the CBA (see Matter of Civil Serv. Bar Assn., Local 237, Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters v City of New York, 64 NY2d 188, 196 [1984]; Butler v McCarty, 191 Misc 2d 318, 324 [Sup Ct, Madison County 2002], affd 306 AD2d 607 [3d Dept 2003]). As a probationary employee, however, plaintiff could have challenged her termination herself in an article 78 proceeding (see e.g. Matter of Castro v Schriro, 140 AD3d 644, 644 [1st Dept 2016], affd 29 NY3d 1005 [2017]).

The nature and purpose of the duty of fair representation— representation in collective bargaining grievances—thus does not support expansion of the duty to cover article 78 proceedings.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn and Singh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered on or about December 6, 2016, which denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, and granted defendants-respondents’ (the Union) cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As a probationary employee, plaintiff’s termination was not the basis for a “grievance” under the governing collective bargaining agreement (CBA). As such, the Union owed her no duty of fair representation (see Portlette v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 25 AD3d 389, 391 [1st Dept 2006]).

Even assuming that the Union owed her a duty here, it would nonetheless have had no duty to initiate a CPLR article 78 proceeding on her behalf. The duty of fair representation is rooted in the bargaining agent’s exclusive statutory authority to pursue grievances on behalf of covered employees under the CBA (see Matter of Civil Serv. Bar Assn., Local 237, Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters v City of New York, 64 NY2d 188, 196 [1984]; Butler v McCarty, 191 Misc 2d 318, 324 [Sup Ct, Madison County 2002], affd 306 AD2d 607 [3d Dept 2003]). As a probationary employee, however, plaintiff could have challenged her termination herself in an article 78 proceeding (see e.g. Matter of Castro v Schriro, 140 AD3d 644, 644 [1st Dept 2016], affd 29 NY3d 1005 [2017]).

The nature and purpose of the duty of fair representation— representation in collective bargaining grievances—thus does not support expansion of the duty to cover article 78 proceedings.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn and Singh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 9272, 156 A.D.3d 587, 65 N.Y.S.3d 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/okpo-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack