Vacating an arbitrator's award concerning a matter submitted to compulsory arbitration
Dikovskiy v New York City Bd. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 00231, Appellate Division, First Department
Gennadiy Dikovskiy filed petition pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking a court order vacating an arbitration award. Supreme Court granted Dikovskiy's petition and denied the New York City Board of Education's motion to dismiss her Article 75 action.
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling vacating the penalty imposed.
Citing Matter of Asch v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ., 104 AD3d 415, the Appellate Division explained that "Where, as here, the parties have submitted to compulsory arbitration, the hearing officer's determination must be in accord with due process, supported by adequate evidence, and rational, and must not be arbitrary and capricious."
Finding that Supreme Court "properly concluded that the hearing officer's determination was arbitrary and capricious, and not supported by the record," the Appellate Division noted that:
1. There was no evidence that Dikovskiy's conduct toward a student violated any rule or regulation or was otherwise inappropriate;
2. The Board of Education's various training materials encouraged teachers to interact with students outside the classroom to foster student development;
3. The alleged "inappropriate" conduct with which Dikovskiy was charged "was not sufficiently defined so as to put Dikovskiy on notice as to what constituted misconduct; and
4. The Appellate Division's review of the video in evidence did not demonstrate that Dikovskiy had "engaged in any inappropriate behavior with a student."
The decision is posted on the Internet at: