Village of Ossining Police Ass'n v. Village of Ossining

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Village of Ossining Police Ass'n v. Village of Ossining

45 A.D.2d 867, 358 N.Y.S.2d 554, 89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2491, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.2d 867 (Village of Ossining Police Ass'n v. Village of Ossining) 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

Village of Ossining Police Ass'n v. Village of Ossining, 45 A.D.2d 867, 358 N.Y.S.2d 554, 89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2491, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In a special proceeding under article 75 of the CPLR to confirm an arbitrator’s award dated February 17, 1972, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 4, 1972, which granted respondent’s cross application to vacate the award and dismissed the petition to confirm the award. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs; arbitration award confirmed; and cross application denied. Despite a comptroller’s opinion questioning the authority of a village to pay a shoe allowance to a policeman, the contractual agreement providing for such payment is lawful, since there is no statute prohibiting such payment. In the absence of an express legislative restriction, the public employer has the power to negotiate all terms and conditions of employment pursuant to the broad provisions of the Taylor Law (Board of Educ., Union Free School Dist. No. 3, Town of Huntington v. Associated Teachers of Huntington, 30 N Y 2d 122). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In a special proceeding under article 75 of the CPLR to confirm an arbitrator’s award dated February 17, 1972, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 4, 1972, which granted respondent’s cross application to vacate the award and dismissed the petition to confirm the award. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs; arbitration award confirmed; and cross application denied. Despite a comptroller’s opinion questioning the authority of a village to pay a shoe allowance to a policeman, the contractual agreement providing for such payment is lawful, since there is no statute prohibiting such payment. In the absence of an express legislative restriction, the public employer has the power to negotiate all terms and conditions of employment pursuant to the broad provisions of the Taylor Law (Board of Educ., Union Free School Dist. No. 3, Town of Huntington v. Associated Teachers of Huntington, 30 N Y 2d 122). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 867, 358 N.Y.S.2d 554, 89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2491, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-ossining-police-assn-v-village-of-ossining-nyappdiv-1974.