New York Public Personnel Law: An arbitration award may be confirmed despite the non-appearance of a party in an Article 75 proceeding

August 26, 2011

An arbitration award may be confirmed despite the non-appearance of a party in an Article 75 proceeding

An arbitration award may be confirmed despite the non-appearance of a party in an Article 75 proceeding

Saunders v City of New York, 283 AD2d 213

The lesson of the Saunders case is that if a party wishes to oppose an Article 75 motion to confirm an arbitration award, it had better appear before the court or it will run the risk of being the target of a default judgment.

A Supreme Court justice confirmed an arbitration award in favor of Lee Saunders, requiring the City of New York to pay him $15,000 in severance pay. The award was confirmed as a result of “default” after the City failed to appear at the Article 75 proceeding to object.

The City's motion to vacate the award was denied by Supreme Court and the City appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's action, noting that the City's motion to vacate its default was properly denied in view of the City's failure to set forth a reasonable excuse for its repeated failure to appear and provide any meritorious defense to the courts confirming the arbitration award in Saunder's favor.

According to the ruling, the City did not appear at four scheduled court dates. Despite “its attorney's personal assurances to the court that there would be no default on the fifth court date,” marked final by the court, the City again failed to appear on that occasion as well.

This conduct, said the Appellate Division, “evincing such a complete lack of regard for the court and the legal process,” is not excusable.

In addition, said the court, “it is plain that [City] has no meritorious defense to confirmation of the subject arbitration award,” commenting that the arbitrator's award of $15,000 in severance pay in accordance with the terms of a severance incentive program agreement is supported by the record.

In any event, an arbitrator's award “will not be vacated even though ... his interpretation of the agreement misconstrues or disregards its plain meaning or misapplies substantive rules of law, unless it is violative of a strong public policy, or is totally irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on his power.” None of these elements, said the court, were relevant in this case.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.

NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.