Webinar: AI Relief, Not Revolution Explore why AI adoption stalls and how to create a more coordinated approach. Save Your Seat
Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State in particular and possibly in other jurisdictions in general.
Apr 24, 2026
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.
Apr 23, 2026
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.