Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re State of New York - Unified Court System, Petitioner-Appellant v. Association of Surrogate's and Supreme Court Reporters Within the City of New York

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


March 28, 2013

IN RE STATE OF NEW YORK - UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
ASSOCIATION OF SURROGATE'S AND SUPREME COURT REPORTERS WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Matter of State of New York - Unified Ct. Sys. v Association of Surrogate's & Supreme Ct. Reporters Within the City of New York

Decided on March 28, 2013

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Tom, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Freedman, Feinman, JJ.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), February 29, 2012, compelling arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the arbitration is permanently stayed.

While we find no statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of this dispute as to the termination of an employee (see Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Lake Grove v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., 118 AD2d 781 [2nd Dept 1986]), a review of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) discloses that the parties did not agree to arbitrate the dispute (see Matter of County of Chautauqua v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, County of Chautauqua Unit 6300, Chautauqua County Local 807, 8 NY3d 513, 519 [2007]). Article 12.6 of the CBA provides that an employee aggrieved by a penalty or punishment may appeal from the determination by petition to the Chief Administrative Judge or by an application pursuant to CPLR article 78.

Since the issue whether respondent's claim is a contract grievance or a non-contract grievance does not arise in this matter, Article 16.8 of the CBA is not applicable.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 28, 2013

CLERK

20130328

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.