ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL

March 10, 2016

A party seeking to modify an arbitration award must comply with the relevant provisions of Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules


A party seeking to modify an arbitration award must comply with the relevant provisions of Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
Board of Educ. of the City Sch, Dist. of the City of New York (DOE) v United Fedn. of Teachers, 2016 NY Slip Op 01592, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court vacated a supplemental arbitration award; the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The Appellate Division said the Supreme Court had “properly vacated the supplemental arbitration award because the parties failed to comply with the procedure set forth in CPLR 7509.”

§7509 permits a modification of an arbitration award by arbitrator[s] and requires that the party seeking the modification to apply for it within 20 days of the delivery of the award by submitting a written application to the arbitrator.* A copy of the application must be served on the other parties to the arbitration.

In the event there is any objection to the modification requested, the objecting party or parties must served the objection on the  arbitrator[s]  and  other parties to the arbitration within ten days of receiving the request for the modification.

Addressing another issue, the Appellate Division found that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers by "rendering wholly new determinations on matters not addressed in the original award."

* In addition a party involved in the arbitration may ask a court to modify an arbitration award as permitted by §7511(c) of the CPLR.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these 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.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor 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.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: nyppl@nycap.rr.com.