A Petitioner seeking to vacate an arbitration award must meet a high burden in order to have a court grant a motion to vacate the award

Supreme Court granted Petitioner law firm's motion to confirm an arbitration award granting it $297,150.91 in unpaid legal fees, and denied the Respondents' motion to vacate the arbitration award. 

Citing CPLR 7511[b][1] and Matter of D.P.I. Imports, Inc v Q4 Designs, LLC, 232 AD3d 512, leave to appeal denied, 43 NY3d 903, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed Supreme Court's ruling, explaining that the Respondents failed to meet the "high burden" placed on it in order to have a court grant its motion to vacate the arbitration award at issue.

The decision notes that the record "does not show that the arbitrator engaged in fraud, corruption or misconduct by refusing to hear pertinent and material evidence, or that he manifestly disregarded the law in finding that [Respondents] breached the retainer agreement and were otherwise liable for the unpaid legal fees based on the equitable theories of recovery."

In the words of the Appellate Division, "A court will not set aside an arbitrator's award for errors of law or fact unless the award is so irrational as to require vacatur, which is not the case here."

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

Selected items posted on blogs during the week ending October 25, 2025

8 Cybersecurity Best Practices From CivicPlus® Cyber threats target governments—deploy best practices to secure systems, protect resident data, and sustain trust. Learn More 

How AI-Powered Agents Streamline State and Local Service Delivery Explore how AI agents can help state and local governments handle routine tasks, streamline operations, and give staff more time for complex issues. DOWNLOAD 

Transparency in Motion: Real-Time Data for Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Public safety agencies are under pressure to do more with less -- respond faster, operate more efficiently, and remain accountable to both leadership and the communities they serve. This paper explores how telematics and in-vehicle data are helping agencies meet those expectations and deliver measurable results. DOWNLOAD

Modernizing Outdated Identity Tools in Government Outdated identity tools increase the risk of cyberattacks, user fatigue, and regulatory noncompliance for state and local agencies. Learn why legacy IAM systems—and methods like passwords, manual provisioning, and siloed identity data—can no longer meet today’s security and compliance needs. DOWNLOAD 

How to Drive Value with AI Now Government agencies are under pressure to adopt AI—but without the risk, complexity, or backlash that often follows rushed implementations. This paper lays out the practical steps state and local governments can take to start using AI right now — without losing control of costs, data or decision-making. DOWNLOAD

Inside the Priorities Shaping Public Budgeting in 2025 Discover what’s top-of-mind for local and state government budget leaders. This year’s survey of public finance professionals reveals how agencies are balancing uncertainty with action, and where opportunity still exists to make budgeting smarter and more community focused. DOWNLOAD

Employer's denial of a police officer application for General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits deemed to be a travesty under the circumstances

In October 2021, a police officer [Petitioner] employed by a New York State village police department responded to an emergency welfare call that culminated in a confrontation during which Petitioner fatally shot an individual. 

Placed on administrative leave pending an investigation, Petitioner returned to work after being cleared of any wrongdoing. In April 2022, Petitioner left work on sick leave after disclosing concerns regarding his mental health to the Village's Chief of Police. 

Petitioner began meeting with a clinical social worker and, on June 29, 2022, he was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] stemming from the October 2021 incident. Petitioner then spoke with the Chief of Police about applying for General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits. In accordance with the Police Chief's instructions, Petitioner promptly submitted various supporting documents and also submitted his completed application for General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits to the Mayor of the Village.

The Mayor acknowledged receipt of Petitioner's application but Petitioner's application for General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits was denied as untimely under the applicable collective bargaining agreement [CBA] which required that such an application had to be made within 10 business days of when the individual "reasonably should have known of the illness or injury giving rise to his claim".

Petitioner challenged the denial of his application as provided by the relevant CBA grievance process and an arbitration hearing was conducted.

The arbitrator issued a written recommendation that the Village [Respondent] exercise discretion available to it under the CBA to overlook any untimeliness in Petitioner's application and grant him General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits. The Respondents rejected the arbitrator's recommendation and denied Petitioner's application for General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits. 

Petitioner initiated the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Respondent's determination. Respondents moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Article 78 petition for failure to state a cause of action. 

Supreme Court, reaching the merits of the Respondent's determination: 

1. Held that the Respondents' determination was not improper;

2. Held the Respondents' determination was supported by substantial evidence; and 

3. Dismissed Plaintiff's Article 78 Petition.

Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's rulings.

The Appellate Division found that the Respondents' determination that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate good cause for the minor delay in the submission of his application for accidental disability retirement "is unsupported by substantial evidence" and opined that it "wholeheartedly agree with the arbitrator that denying [Petitioner's] application for General Municipal Law §207-c disability benefits would be a travesty".

The Appellate Division annulled the Supreme Court's judgement and remitted the matter to the Respondents "for further proceedings not inconsistent with [its] decision".

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

Access to educational facilities

Plaintiffs allege that the New York City public education system, through its admissions and screening policies, curriculum content, and lack of diversity among the teacher workforce, discriminates against and disproportionately affects Black and Latino students, leading to unequal educational opportunities and negative outcomes for those students. 

Plaintiffs further allege that these practices and policies deprive Black and Latino students of a sound basic education in contravention of the Education Article of the State Constitution (NY Const., Article XI, §1), denies them equal protection of the laws (NY Const., Article I, §11), and denies them access to educational facilities in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law §296. 

Although Plaintiffs identify troubling aspects of New York City's public education system, the claims as presented in the complaint fail as a matter of law. 

Click HERE to access the Court of Appeals' decision posted on the Internet.

A School Board, as the "body corporate" of a School District, not to be deemed to be the School District in the instant litigation

The Hempstead Classroom Teachers Association [Plaintiff] had entered into two settlement agreements with the Hempstead Union Free School District [School District], resolving certain grievances that had been filed by the Plaintiff against the School District. The settlement agreements set out a schedule for the School District's payment of sums due pursuant to arbitration awards entered in favor of the Plaintiff and its members.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, Plaintiff appealed a Supreme Court order which dismiss its complaint and denied the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint to adding the Board of Education of the Hempstead Union Free School District and the Superintendent of Schools of the School District as Defendants [hereinafter "Defendants"]. Defendants had moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that they were not parties to the settlement agreements between the Plaintiff and the School District.

The Plaintiff appeal the Supreme Court's decision. The Appellate Division, noting that generally "[o]ne cannot be held liable under a contract to which he or she is not a party", ruled that the Supreme Court "properly granted dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)" as the Defendants were not parties to the settlement agreements between the Plaintiff and the School District. 

Citing Roseblum v Board of Educ. Great Neck Union Free Sch. Dist., 231 AD3d 881, the Appellate Division pointed out that "although the settlement agreements were subject to approval by the Board, the settlement agreements did not obligate the Board to perform on behalf of the School District". The Appellate Division explained that the School Board, as the "body corporate" of the School District, is not interchangeable with the School District.

Finding that the Supreme Court had providently exercised its discretion in denying Plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint, the Appellate Division pointed out that "the Plaintiff's request was made in opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's efforts to amend the complaint by adding Defendants to the Plaintiff's complaint and not by motion or cross-motion on notice. Further, the Appellate Division observed that the Plaintiff had failed to annex a copy of the proposed amended complaint as required by CPLR 3025(b).

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