Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Benevolent Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Benevolent Ass'n

99 A.D.3d 497, 952 N.Y.2d 505

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

DecidedOctober 9, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 497 (Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Benevolent Ass'n) 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

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Benevolent Ass'n, 99 A.D.3d 497, 952 N.Y.2d 505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The award in this case was not “totally” irrational, nor did it violate public policy (Matter of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v Chesley, 7 AD3d 368, 372 [1st Dept 2004], quoting Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]). The arbitrator properly found that according to the contract language, there was no “emergency” that justified bypassing the contract’s terms regarding assignment of personnel. Further, the award merely enforced the terms of the parties’ contract, which already addressed the public policy issues that petitioner raises on this appeal.

The arbitrator did not exceed her powers in making the award, as the contract language to which petitioner points does not address the situation at issue in this matter. Indeed, petitioner itself requested relief that was not specified in the [498]*498relevant contract language, and therefore cannot now be heard to say that the award exceeded the scope of the arbitrator’s authority.

We have considered the remaining contentions, including respondent’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Richter, AbdusSalaam and Román, JJ.

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

The award in this case was not “totally” irrational, nor did it violate public policy (Matter of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v Chesley, 7 AD3d 368, 372 [1st Dept 2004], quoting Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]). The arbitrator properly found that according to the contract language, there was no “emergency” that justified bypassing the contract’s terms regarding assignment of personnel. Further, the award merely enforced the terms of the parties’ contract, which already addressed the public policy issues that petitioner raises on this appeal.

The arbitrator did not exceed her powers in making the award, as the contract language to which petitioner points does not address the situation at issue in this matter. Indeed, petitioner itself requested relief that was not specified in the [498]*498relevant contract language, and therefore cannot now be heard to say that the award exceeded the scope of the arbitrator’s authority.

We have considered the remaining contentions, including respondent’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Richter, AbdusSalaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 497, 952 N.Y.2d 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-v-port-authority-police-benevolent-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack