Rockland Department of Social Services v. Rockland County Unit
Opinion of the Court
Once a party has participated in arbitration his ability to have the courts vacate or modify the award is limited by statute (see, CPLR 7511 [b] [1]; Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn., 41 NY2d 578, 582; see also, CPLR 7511 [c]). The power of the courts to intervene is even more restricted when the arbitrator’s interpretation resolves the question submitted, and not merely one aspect of the dispute (see, Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn., supra, at 582). In the case at bar, the appellant submitted the question of whether the county should be required to provide vehicles to employees for the transportation of clients. The record discloses no objection thereto by the county. As a consequence, the arbitration panel had the power to decide this question (see, Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn., supra). Its resolution of the issue cannot be impugned unless completely irrational (see, Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson], 8 NY2d 377, 383). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the arbitration panel’s award was not completely irrational. Thus, the county, having participated in the arbitration, is bound by the panel’s award (Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson], supra, at 382).
The petitioner claims that the panel’s award is against public policy because it usurps an important governmental function. Its argument is that the arbitration panel, by determining that the county is required "to see that there are sufficient personnel available when an escort is required” and that "[t]he County is required to have available sufficient vehicles to permit each employee, at his or her own option, to use a County vehicle”, invaded the legislative and executive powers of the county to budget and tax. We do not agree that
Lastly, we conclude that the arbitration panel’s retention of jurisdiction over the implementation of the petitioner’s escort policy was not irrational or in excess of its authority (see, Matter of Board of Educ. v Dover-Wingdale Teachers’ Assn., 95 AD2d 497, affd 61 NY2d 913; Matter of Board of Educ. [Westmoreland Teachers Assn.], 58 AD2d 228). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.