Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. City of New York

27 A.D.3d 381, 812 N.Y.S.2d 62

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 381 (Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n 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

Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. City of New York, 27 A.D.3d 381, 812 N.Y.S.2d 62 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered on or about March 1, 2005, which, inter alia, remanded to the Board of Collective Bargaining the issue of whether the City can direct petitioners to request certain documents and information through the Municipal Labor Committee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The administrative refusal, on mootness grounds, to determine petitioners’ separate improper practice claim was arbitrary and capricious in light of a viable controversy manifested by, among other things, the City’s repeated insistence that petitioners, the exclusive bargaining representatives for its members, proceed through another entity that it often worked with only upon consent. In this regard, the administrative determination was not entitled to deference (see Matter of KSLM-Columbus Apts., Inc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 5 NY3d 303, 312 [2005]). In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address whether an exception to the mootness doctrine applied (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]), or whether the administrative body improperly departed from its own precedent. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered on or about March 1, 2005, which, inter alia, remanded to the Board of Collective Bargaining the issue of whether the City can direct petitioners to request certain documents and information through the Municipal Labor Committee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The administrative refusal, on mootness grounds, to determine petitioners’ separate improper practice claim was arbitrary and capricious in light of a viable controversy manifested by, among other things, the City’s repeated insistence that petitioners, the exclusive bargaining representatives for its members, proceed through another entity that it often worked with only upon consent. In this regard, the administrative determination was not entitled to deference (see Matter of KSLM-Columbus Apts., Inc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 5 NY3d 303, 312 [2005]). In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address whether an exception to the mootness doctrine applied (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]), or whether the administrative body improperly departed from its own precedent. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 381, 812 N.Y.S.2d 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrolmens-benevolent-assn-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack