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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

127 A.D.3d 675, 8 N.Y.S.3d 193

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

DecidedApril 30, 2015

Docket14992N 450618/13

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 675 (Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Detectives Endowment 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 Detectives Endowment Ass'n, 127 A.D.3d 675, 8 N.Y.S.3d 193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered March 10, 2014, which denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award, dated January 22, 2013, rendered in favor of respondent ruling that petitioner violated the parties’ governing collective bargaining memorandum of agreement (MOA) by eliminating free E-Z Pass privileges for retired detectives, and confirmed the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The MOA expressly incorporates the terms of a 1973 Port Authority Administrative Instruction, PAI 40-1.01, which provides that respondent’s retirees shall “receive the same allowance to which they would be entitled if their [PA] service was not interrupted.” The arbitrator’s ruling that this language vests respondent’s retirees with a lifetime interest in the EZ-Pass privileges which they enjoyed while employed, is not “ ‘completely irrational’ ” or otherwise beyond the scope of the arbitrator’s authority (Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Port Auth. Police Lieutenants Benevolent Assn., 124 AD3d 473 [1st Dept 2015]; Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Port Auth. Police Sergeants Benevolent Assn., 124 AD3d 474 [1st Dept 2015] [SBA I]; Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Port Auth. Police Sergeants Benevolent Assn., 124 AD3d 475 [1st Dept 2015] [SBA II]). Given his finding that PAI 40-1.01 had been repeatedly incorporated into the MOA’s predecessor agreements, the arbitrator rationally construed the MOA as continuing and incorporating vested personal pass benefits for all retirees, and he did not exceed his contractual authority by declining to limit the scope of the award to respondent’s members who retired during the term of the current MOA (see NBA II, 124 AD3d at 475).

Petitioner’s contention, that the arbitrator exceeded his *676 contractual power by misapplying applicable precedent, is without merit. “The contractual phrase, ‘in accordance with applicable law,’ refers to the extent to which the arbitral award will be binding upon the parties; it does not indicate an intent of the parties to deviate from the basic principle that an arbitral award may not be vacated on the ground that the arbitrator made a mistake of law” (SBA I, 124 AD3d at 475; SBA II, 124 AD3d at 475-476).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered March 10, 2014, which denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award, dated January 22, 2013, rendered in favor of respondent ruling that petitioner violated the parties’ governing collective bargaining memorandum of agreement (MOA) by eliminating free E-Z Pass privileges for retired detectives, and confirmed the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The MOA expressly incorporates the terms of a 1973 Port Authority Administrative Instruction, PAI 40-1.01, which provides that respondent’s retirees shall “receive the same allowance to which they would be entitled if their [PA] service was not interrupted.” The arbitrator’s ruling that this language vests respondent’s retirees with a lifetime interest in the EZ-Pass privileges which they enjoyed while employed, is not “ ‘completely irrational’ ” or otherwise beyond the scope of the arbitrator’s authority (Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Port Auth. Police Lieutenants Benevolent Assn., 124 AD3d 473 [1st Dept 2015]; Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Port Auth. Police Sergeants Benevolent Assn., 124 AD3d 474 [1st Dept 2015] [SBA I]; Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Port Auth. Police Sergeants Benevolent Assn., 124 AD3d 475 [1st Dept 2015] [SBA II]). Given his finding that PAI 40-1.01 had been repeatedly incorporated into the MOA’s predecessor agreements, the arbitrator rationally construed the MOA as continuing and incorporating vested personal pass benefits for all retirees, and he did not exceed his contractual authority by declining to limit the scope of the award to respondent’s members who retired during the term of the current MOA (see NBA II, 124 AD3d at 475).

Petitioner’s contention, that the arbitrator exceeded his *676 contractual power by misapplying applicable precedent, is without merit. “The contractual phrase, ‘in accordance with applicable law,’ refers to the extent to which the arbitral award will be binding upon the parties; it does not indicate an intent of the parties to deviate from the basic principle that an arbitral award may not be vacated on the ground that the arbitrator made a mistake of law” (SBA I, 124 AD3d at 475; SBA II, 124 AD3d at 475-476).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 675, 8 N.Y.S.3d 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-v-port-authority-police-detectives-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack