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

124 A.D.3d 473, 2 N.Y.S.3d 91
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 2015
Docket13971N 450825/13
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 124 A.D.3d 473 (Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Lieutenants 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 Lieutenants Benevolent Ass'n, 124 A.D.3d 473, 2 N.Y.S.3d 91 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered June 14, 2013, confirming an arbitration award, dated September 10, 2012, rendered upon a finding that *474 petitioner violated the parties’ governing collective bargaining agreement (Memorandum of Agreement [MOA]) by eliminating free “E-Z Pass” privileges for retired police lieutenants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The MOA expressly incorporates the terms of a 1973 Port Authority Administrative Instruction, PAI 40-1.01, that provides that retired employees “receive the same allowance to which they would be entitled if their Port Authority service was not interrupted.” The ruling that this language vests retired members of respondent with a lifetime interest in the EZ-Pass privileges they enjoyed while employed did not exceed the arbitrator’s authority since it is not “completely irrational” (Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson], 8 NY2d 377, 383 [1960]; Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y.& N.J. v Local Union No. 3, Intl. Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 117 AD3d 424 [1st Dept 2014]).

Supreme Court stated in the judgment that the arbitrator “noted” that “it will take a new Collective Bargaining Agreement and MOA to end free passes for [respondent’s] members, past and present.” We note that the court’s remark is dictum and that the statement of the arbitrator that the court paraphrased, also dictum, expressed no such determination.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, Andrias, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v. Union of Automotive Technicians
129 A.D.3d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Detectives Endowment Ass'n
127 A.D.3d 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 A.D.3d 473, 2 N.Y.S.3d 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-v-port-authority-police-nyappdiv-2015.