Reinig v. Laehy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reinig v. Laehy

101 A.D.2d 688, 475 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18233

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

DecidedApril 12, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 A.D.2d 688 (Reinig v. Laehy) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 688, 475 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reinig-v-laehy-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack