State of New York—Unified Court System v. Court Attorneys Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State of New York—Unified Court System v. Court Attorneys Ass'n

267 A.D.2d 92, 700 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13052

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 92 (State of New York—Unified Court System v. Court Attorneys 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

State of New York—Unified Court System v. Court Attorneys Ass'n, 267 A.D.2d 92, 700 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered June 9, 1999, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration demanded by respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The fact that the subject collective bargaining agreement provides that certain court employees shall receive increments for which they are eligible pursuant to Judiciary Law § 37 does not require petitioner to submit a dispute over the interpretation of the statute to binding arbitration as a grievance dispute (see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Probation v MacDonald, 205 AD2d 372; Matter of Barnes [Council 82, AFSCME], 235 AD2d 695). The correct method of determining the validity of the Comptroller’s construction of the statute is by CPLR article 78 proceeding, which respondent has commenced, and which has been stayed pending resolution of this appeal. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered June 9, 1999, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration demanded by respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The fact that the subject collective bargaining agreement provides that certain court employees shall receive increments for which they are eligible pursuant to Judiciary Law § 37 does not require petitioner to submit a dispute over the interpretation of the statute to binding arbitration as a grievance dispute (see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Probation v MacDonald, 205 AD2d 372; Matter of Barnes [Council 82, AFSCME], 235 AD2d 695). The correct method of determining the validity of the Comptroller’s construction of the statute is by CPLR article 78 proceeding, which respondent has commenced, and which has been stayed pending resolution of this appeal. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 92, 700 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-new-yorkunified-court-system-v-court-attorneys-assn-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack