Pena v. Office of Commissioner of Baseball

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pena v. Office of Commissioner of Baseball

125 A.D.3d 461, 3 N.Y.S.3d 344

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2015

Docket14171 652848/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 A.D.3d 461 (Pena v. Office of Commissioner of Baseball) 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

Pena v. Office of Commissioner of Baseball, 125 A.D.3d 461, 3 N.Y.S.3d 344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lawrence K. Marks, J.), entered March 27, 2014, which granted defendants the Office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball and the Washington Nationals Baseball Club’s motions to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this putative class action suit, the motion court properly concluded that plaintiffs commencement of this action was an improper collateral attack on a prior arbitration decision that plaintiff failed to challenge in accordance with CPLR 7511. Plaintiff was required to file a petition challenging the determination within 90 days of receipt of the arbitrator’s decision in order to challenge the arbitration clause in the Minor League Uniform Players’ Contract (see Matter of Mavica v New York City Tr. Auth., 289 AD2d 86 [1st Dept 2001]).

Similarly, in order to challenge the arbitration clause on the ground that he was coerced into signing the contract and agreeing to arbitration, he would have had to file a motion to stay the arbitration (see CPLR 7503 [b]). Having failed to follow the proper procedure, plaintiff cannot now be heard by bringing these claims in a putative plenary class action.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, DeGrasse 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 (Lawrence K. Marks, J.), entered March 27, 2014, which granted defendants the Office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball and the Washington Nationals Baseball Club’s motions to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this putative class action suit, the motion court properly concluded that plaintiffs commencement of this action was an improper collateral attack on a prior arbitration decision that plaintiff failed to challenge in accordance with CPLR 7511. Plaintiff was required to file a petition challenging the determination within 90 days of receipt of the arbitrator’s decision in order to challenge the arbitration clause in the Minor League Uniform Players’ Contract (see Matter of Mavica v New York City Tr. Auth., 289 AD2d 86 [1st Dept 2001]).

Similarly, in order to challenge the arbitration clause on the ground that he was coerced into signing the contract and agreeing to arbitration, he would have had to file a motion to stay the arbitration (see CPLR 7503 [b]). Having failed to follow the proper procedure, plaintiff cannot now be heard by bringing these claims in a putative plenary class action.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 461, 3 N.Y.S.3d 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pena-v-office-of-commissioner-of-baseball-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack