ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

January 20, 2015

Elements considered by courts in evaluating the results of an arbitration

Elements considered by courts in evaluating the results of an arbitration
2015 NY Slip Op 00444, Appellate Division, First Department

In response to a challenge to an arbitration award where the penalty imposed was termination, Supreme Court denied the Article 75 petition seeking to vacate and arbitration award

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling, noting the following elements concerning the arbitration:

1. The selection of the Hearing Officer comported with the law, in this instance Education Law §3020-a[3][b][ii]).

2. The record showed that the individual “had an adequate opportunity to prepare for the hearing” in that he was sent the notice of charges and specifications approximately a month before the hearing and had “retained counsel over a week before the hearing.”

3. The specifications sufficiently apprised the individual of the charges against him, including the bases for the charges and listed specific dates that corresponded to numerous observation reports and letters in the individual’s personnel file.

4. The individual was able to mount a defense, called witnesses and his counsel had the opportunity to examine or cross-examine every witness.

5. There was no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's credibility findings in favor of the Department of Education's witnesses

6. The Hearing Officer's determination was in accord with due process, rational, and supported by adequate evidence
________________

The Discipline Book, - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State set out in a 2100+ page e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html
____________

 

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.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
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.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com