In re the Arbitration between Travis & Masiello

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Nelson H. Cosgrove, J.), entered August 24, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The judgment directed that certain employees of defendant the City of Buffalo are to be returned to their positions and awarded back pay and lost benefits.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the petition seeking to confirm the award of the arbitrator and denied the cross motion seeking to vacate the award. As the court properly determined, the arbitrator’s award does not “violate[ ] a strong public policy, is [not] irrational[, and does not] clearly exceed[ ] a specifically enumerated limitation on an arbitrator’s power under CPLR 7511 (b) (1)” {Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 326 [1999]). “[I]t is not for the courts to interpret *1094the substantive conditions of the contract or to determine the merits of [a] dispute” when the matter has been submitted to binding arbitration (Board of Educ., Lakeland Cent. School Dist. of Shrub Oak v Barni, 51 NY2d 894, 895 [1980], rearg denied 52 NY2d 829 [1980]), “even where the apparent, or even the plain, meaning of the words in the contract has been disregarded” (Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 83 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Martoche and Smith, JJ.