Concerning confirming or vacating an arbitration award

Noting that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited, the Appellate Division indicated an arbitration award would be vacated:

1. When the arbitrator's award is "so imperfectly executed ... that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made"; or

2. When the arbitration award is indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR §7511 because:

            a. it does not dispose of a particular issue raised by the parties; or

            b. it leaves the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations; or

            c. it does not resolve the controversy submitted; or

            d. it creates a new controversy;

Citing Union-Endicott Cent. Sch. Dist. v Peters, 123 AD3d 1198; Matter of Rochester City School Dist. [Rochester Teachers Assn. NYSUT/AFT-AFL/CIO], 38 AD3d 1152, and Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v County of Nassau, 305 AD2d 498, the Appellate Division explained that in this instance the arbitrator denied the contract grievance in full, resolving the stipulated issue of whether the County violated the collective bargaining agreement, and held "the Supreme Court properly confirmed the original arbitration award as it was not indefinite or nonfinal, and it completely disposed of the issue before the arbitrator."

Further, opined the Appellate Division, arbitrators are without power to render a new award or to modify an original award, except as provided in CPLR 7509" although an arbitrator may modify an award, inter alia,* where "the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted."

*Among other things.

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

Follow-up on reports concerning school districts facing "fiscal stress"

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reports school districts designated in fiscal stress dropped to record lows largely due to aid increase.

The Comptroller's office has been tracking local government and school district fiscal stress for nearly a decade through its Fiscal Stress Monitoring System and now reports that its finds that for fiscal year 2021-22 indicates only 14 school districts were designated in fiscal stress. This is the lowest number of districts in stress since the System’s inception.

Major increases in aid over the last two years from both the federal government (temporary) and the State (ongoing) have helped – particularly for many high-need districts that have struggled to avoid fiscal stress in recent years.

For more, see the Comptroller's: 

Report on Fiscal Year 2021-22 Results; and the

Lists of School Districts in Stress and all School District FSMS Scores.

Reports and fiscal stress scores for all counties, cities, towns and villages are available. For more information and for the Comptroller's most recent data, visit the Fiscal Stress Monitoring System main page.  

Characteristics of a hostile work environment for the purposes of litigating claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983

To prevail in a “hostile work environment” action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983  the Plaintiff must set out claims alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment and demonstrate that his “workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] employment and create an abusive working environment.”  

The Circuit Court Appeals, Second Circuit held that Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim was based on the same conduct underpinning his racial discrimination and retaliation claims: his being given work orders to change light bulbs and, from time to time, receiving work orders for items not in need of repair. 

The Circuit Court explained that such "identified conduct falls far short of the conduct required to sustain a hostile work environment claim." The Circuit Court then affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint.

The District Court had dismissed Plaintiff's claims, in part, because Plaintiff failed to identify any adverse employment action. The Circuit Court, agreeing with the District Court that the Plaintiff failed to identify an adverse employment action, affirmed the lower court's ruling and opined that it "need not address any of the other grounds identified by the District Court as supporting summary judgment". 

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court's decision posted on the Internet.

Applying the Doctrine of Res Judicata

Federal district court dismissed Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. 

The U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the lower court's ruling explaining “res judicata bars re-litigation of a claim if :

    (1) the previous action involved an adjudication on the merits; [and]

    (2) the previous action involved the same parties or those in privity with them; [and] 

    (3) the claims asserted in the subsequent action were, or could have been, raised in the prior action.”

In this instance the Plaintiff and the Defendants were parties in both this case and the prior litigation and the prior action was decided on the merits through a motion to dismiss. 

The Circuit Court also noted that Plaintiff's current claims against Defendants could have been brought in the earlier action if they were not and, accordingly, the District Court properly determined that the claims against Defendants were barred by res judicata. 

As to another claim advanced by Plaintiff, the Circuit Court observed that "defamation claims against the attorneys relating to their work in the prior lawsuit are precluded by the common law litigation privilege," citing Martirano v. Frost, 25 N.Y.2d 505. The court opined that "a courtroom statement is absolutely privileged unless it is 'so outrageously out of context as to permit one to conclude, from the mere fact that the statement was uttered, that it was motivated by no other desire than to defame'”. 

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court's decision.

Report by New York State Comptroller issued January 25, 2023 identifies school districts in fiscal stress

Fourteen school districts statewide were designated in some level of fiscal stress under State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli’s Fiscal Stress Monitoring System for the school year (SY) ending on June 30, 2022, down from 23 districts in fiscal stress the prior year. This is the lowest incidence of fiscal stress recorded for schools since the system’s inception in the 2012-13 school year.

“The number of districts designated in a fiscal stress category has fallen considerably over the past three years. This year there was a particularly steep drop because of significant increases in both federal and state aid,” DiNapoli said. “High need districts in urban and suburban areas, which typically have the highest incidence of fiscal stress, received some of the largest increases in aid. However, the federal aid is temporary so school district officials may face difficult operational and staffing decisions in determining how to best provide services to their students in the future.”  

The Comptroller’s Fiscal Stress Monitoring System was designed to identify issues that school districts, counties, cities, towns and villages are having with budgetary solvency, or the ability to generate enough revenues to meet expenses. The Comptroller releases fiscal stress scores for the various categories of government three times a year. School districts are given a fiscal stress score based on several factors: year-end fund balance, operating deficits and surpluses, cash position, and reliance on short-term debt for cash-flow. The higher the score the more severe the level of stress.

The monitoring system, which excludes New York City and the “Big Four” City School Districts of Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers, found one school district in “significant fiscal stress,” which is the highest category - Mount Vernon City School District in Westchester County.

Five districts were designated as being in moderate fiscal stress. Only one of these, East Ramapo Central School District in Rockland County, saw a decrease in its stress score since last year. The remaining four – Arkport Central School District (Steuben County) Harrisville Central School District (Lewis County), New Suffolk Common School District (Suffolk County), and Roscoe Central School District (Sullivan County) – had score increases.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government passed three major multiyear grants of aid targeted to low-income school districts. In total, school districts included in FSMS reported receiving nearly $1 billion in temporary federal aid during SY 2021-22.

DiNapoli’s report also notes many school districts also saw a substantial increase in ongoing state aid. In State Fiscal Year 2021-22 Enacted Budget, the state committed to fully funding Foundation Aid for school districts by SY 2023-24. Total state aid reported by school districts (excluding New York City and the Big Four) increased from $13.8 billion in SY 2020-21 to $15 billion in SY 2021-22, an increase of $1.1 billion, or 8.5%.

Lists [Click on text set out in color to access the data.]

School Districts in Stress for Fiscal Year Ending 2022

Complete List of School District Fiscal Stress Scores

Report

Fiscal Stress Monitoring System: School Districts Fiscal Year 2012-22 Results

###

Track state and local government spending at Open Book New York. Under State Comptroller DiNapoli’s open data initiative, search millions of state and local government financial records, track state contracts, and find commonly requested data.