Resolving a challenge to an arbitrator's decision and award

The petitioner [Union] commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking to vacate a decision by Supreme Court that an arbitration opinion and award holding that the termination of one of its members was in accordance with the parties' collective bargaining agreement [CBA] with the employer [County] and Supreme Court's granting the County's cross-petition seeking to confirm the arbitrator's opinion and award.

Union had appealed Supreme Court's ruling, contending that Supreme Court was incorrect and that the arbitrator's opinion and award were irrational. In addition, Union argued that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority.

Citing Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, the Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court's ruling, explaining that:

1. "An arbitration award may be vacated on three narrow grounds: 'it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power';

2. "An award is irrational if there is no proof whatever to justify the award, noting the decision in Matter of Town of Greece Guardians' Club, Local 1170, Communication Workers of Am. [Town of Greece], 167 AD3d 1452);

3. "... in this instance the arbitrator's award was justified by the language of the CBA, the CBA's reference to the rules for the Classified Civil Service of the [County] and the parties' past practices," in effect rejecting the Union's claim that the opinion and award were irrational; and concluded that

4. "Contrary to [Union's] further contention, the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by effectively rewriting the CBA or ignoring its terms, and instead interpreted the existing terms of the CBA after finding the language of the CBA to be ambiguous."

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

 

The Appellate Division affirms Supreme Court's ruling allowing New York City retirees to have the ability to opt out of the City's Medicare Advantage Plan

In the Matter of NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, Inc., [OPSR] et al. v Renee Campion [NYC] et al. Supreme Court granted the OPSR's petition to the extent of:

[i] allowing New York City retirees to have the option of opting out of the City's Medicare Advantage Plan;

[ii] enjoining NYC from passing along any costs of the retirees' current plan to the retirees or their dependents except where such plan rises above the H.I.P-H.M.O threshold provided by Administrative Code of City of NY §12-126;

[iii] requiring NYC to ensure that all retirees and their dependents pay the deductible for only one plan for the calendar year 2022; and

[iv] denied NYC's motion to dismiss the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed Supreme Court's ruling, without costs, explaining:

1. The issue raised on this "appeal is one of pure statutory interpretation subject to de novo review, and not one requiring deference to the special expertise of respondent agency";

2. Administrative Code §12-126(b)(1) provides: "The city will pay the entire cost of health insurance coverage for city employees, city retirees, and their dependents, not to exceed one hundred percent of the full cost of H.I.P.-H.M.O. on a category basis"; and

3. Supreme Court correctly determined that Administrative Code §12-126(b)(1) requires NYC "to pay the entire cost, up to the statutory cap, of any health insurance plan a retiree selects."

This interpretation, said the Appellate Division, "comports with the plain language of the provision as well as its legislative history," citing Matter of Albany Law School v New York State Off. of Mental Retardation and Dev. Disabilities, 19 NY3d 106. 

Further, opined the Appellate Division, "Nothing in the statutory text or history supports [NYC's] interpretation that the provision is satisfied so long as [it pays] for the costs of one of the health insurance plans offered to retirees, which [it] determined to be the Medicare Advantage Plus Plan."

Click HEREto access the text of the Appellate Division's decision.

 

Failure to timely serve the required notice of claim bars the court from addressing the merits of allegations of unlawful discrimination

In this action Plaintiff alleged that his employer, a Municipality, and certain named individuals "appearing separately", had unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of his race, subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment, and retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of New York State's Human Rights Law.*

Supreme Court, however, found that Plaintiff failed to serve a timely "notice of claim," which was a condition precedent to commencing his action and granted Municipality's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it and against each named individuals "appearing separately". Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court ruling "with one bill of costs" to the named individuals appearing separately and filing separate briefs, explaining that Plaintiff failed to serve a timely notice of claim, which was a condition precedent to commencing his action. 

Citing Seifullah v City of New York, 161 AD3d 1206, the Appellate Division said contrary to the Plaintiff's contention, the filing of a notice of claim was a condition precedent to the maintenance of his action and Plaintiff's reliance upon Margerum v City of Buffalo (24 NY3d 721) was misplaced.

* See Executive Law §296.

Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.