Western v. MacKenzie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Western v. MacKenzie

187 A.D.2d 1000

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 1000 (Western v. MacKenzie) 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

Western v. MacKenzie, 187 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We reject respondents’ contention that the cooperative service contract entered into between petitioner Board of Education of Gorham-Middlesex Central School District and the Wayne-Finger Lakes Board of Cooperative Education Services for the provision of itinerant teaching services for a one-half time Spanish teacher (see, Education Law § 1950 [4] [bb] [3]) fell within the ambit of the grievance provision of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. In our view, respondents’ demand for arbitration failed to satisfy either of the Liverpool inquiries (see, Matter of Acting Supt. of Schools of Liverpool Cent. School Dist. [United Liverpool Faculty Assn.], 42 NY2d 509). Thus, Supreme Court properly granted petitioners’ application to stay arbitration (see, CPLR 7503 [b]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Curran, J.—Arbitration.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We reject respondents’ contention that the cooperative service contract entered into between petitioner Board of Education of Gorham-Middlesex Central School District and the Wayne-Finger Lakes Board of Cooperative Education Services for the provision of itinerant teaching services for a one-half time Spanish teacher (see, Education Law § 1950 [4] [bb] [3]) fell within the ambit of the grievance provision of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. In our view, respondents’ demand for arbitration failed to satisfy either of the Liverpool inquiries (see, Matter of Acting Supt. of Schools of Liverpool Cent. School Dist. [United Liverpool Faculty Assn.], 42 NY2d 509). Thus, Supreme Court properly granted petitioners’ application to stay arbitration (see, CPLR 7503 [b]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Curran, J.—Arbitration.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 1000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/western-v-mackenzie-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack