The employer's failing to seek vacation or modification of an arbitration award within the statutorily prescribed 90 days period requires that the arbitration award be confirmed

Supreme Court denied, in part, an employee organization's petition to confirm an arbitration award. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's ruling on the law, without costs, vacated the modification and confirmed the arbitration award in its entirety.

The Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court should have confirmed "the entirety of the arbitration award",  explaining that CPLR §7510-a(a) addresses public sector employee arbitrations and provides that "[t]he court shall confirm an award in a public sector arbitration proceeding upon application of a party made within one year after its delivery to the party, unless an application to vacate or modify the award ... is made within ninety days after the delivery of the award to the party seeking to modify or vacate".

In this instance the employer did not seek to vacate or modify the award within the statutorily prescribed 90 days. 

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court should have confirmed the arbitration award as the employee organization had preserved its claim by explicitly addressing the 90-day limitations period in its petition.

The Appellate Division also noted that the fact that an employee organization is not itself an employee of the employer but rather the representative of the public sector employees in the relevant collective bargaining unit does not change the application of CPLR §7510-a.

In addition, the Appellate Division observed that the legislative history of CPLR §7510-a "does not set forth any rationale for excluding unions from the definition of employees", citing the Assembly Memorandum in Support of the Bill, [Bill Jacket, Chapter 679 of the Laws of 2023].

The Court then directed its Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

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

When may a municipality be said to have assumed a special duty of care with respect to a plaintiff

Appellate Division observed that this appeal presented it with an opportunity to provide "additional clarity" concerning when a municipality may be said to have assumed a special duty of care with respect to a plaintiff thereby subjecting the municipality to liability in negligence for breaching that special duty, and, relatedly, when the municipality may rely on the governmental function immunity defense. 

For the reasons set out in the decision of the Appellate Division in the instant matter, the Appellate Division held that a municipality may be said to have assumed a special duty of care with respect to a protected party, or the parent of a protected party, when responding to a request to enforce the "stay away" provisions of a court order such as the one at issue in this case. 

The Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court erred when it granted the government defendants' separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

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

Individual found guilty of stealing $90,000 in Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) funds

On April 20, 2026, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Albany County District Attorney Lee C. Kindlon and New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James announced that a resident of Woodstock, New York was sentenced to five years’ probation for his role in stealing $90,000 in Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) funds to which he was not entitled. 

“As technology advances so do fraudsters, and this case shows that collaboration works in holding defendants accountable when they attempt to use deception to steal taxpayer dollars,” Kindlon said. “Kudos to the Comptroller’s Office, New York State Police and our Financial Crimes Unit in uncovering this attempt to defraud the state.”

“This sentencing significantly demonstrates the effectiveness of the measures taken to safeguard the application process for rental assistance. The State Police will continue to work to impede the use of false information to prevent individuals from fraudulently obtaining funds they are not entitled to. I commend the New York State Comptroller’s Office, our State Police members, and Albany County District Attorney’s Office for their combined effort in this sentencing,” James said.

To perpetrate their scheme, the defendants filed a phony application with the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to fraudulently obtain funding through the ERAP.

The ERAP program was created during the COVID-19 pandemic to help medium and low-income households at risk of eviction. Landlords or tenants could apply to OTDA for funds to cover unpaid back rent and future rent payments. If the tenant met the criteria, the payments would be made directly to the landlord.

The New York State Police received a complaint that a brother and his sister received ERAP funds that they were not entitled to. Based on the complaint, a joint investigation was launched by DiNapoli’s office and the State Police.

                                                              ###

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. New Yorkers can report allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236 or by emailing a complaint to investigations@osc.ny.gov .