Reinig v. Laehy

101 A.D.2d 688, 475 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18233
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 12, 1984·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying respondents’ motion to dismiss this CPLR article 78 petition. The collective bargaining agreement between the parties provides a four-step grievance process culminating in arbitration which applies to any dispute which relates to “application, meaning and interpretation” of the agreement. This dispute, as to whether respondents were required to give petitioner notice and a hearing prior to docking him one-half day’s pay, is clearly encompassed by the collective bargaining agreement and petitioner was required to avail himself of the grievance procedure prior to seeking article 78 relief (Matter ofBaran v Otterbein, 84 AD2d 928). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cook, J. — art 78.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Reinig v. Laehy, 101 A.D.2d 688, 475 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

101 A.D.2d 688 (Reinig v. Laehy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis v. Thompson
186 A.D.2d 1019 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)