Rieder v. State University of New York
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sasso v. City of Yonkers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Gertler v. Goodgold (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Carter v. Department of Correction (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Arizaga v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Prey v. County of Cattaraugus (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- Arvelo v. Macchiarola (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
- Olton v. County of Westchester (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
- Madon v. Long Island University (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)
- Curtis v. Schlegel Manufacturing Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)
- Houghton v. Schuler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- Rizk v. Braun (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- Barhite v. Dyson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
- Whitley v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The plaintiffs have utterly failed to exhaust available and adequate administrative remedies. Even accepting plaintiffs’ contentions that an expeditious resolution of this controversy was necessary lest the disputed funds lapse, the plaintiffs had sufficient time to follow the speedy grievance procedure provided for in a binding collective bargaining agreement. Although the remaining steps in the procedure required the prosecution of the grievance by plaintiffs’ union, there is no indication that the union was unwilling to pursue the grievance on their behalf. For all that appears on this record, plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain a judicial resolution of this controversy was, in practical effect, an effort to avoid arbitration, the final stage in the grievance procedure. This evasion we reject.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
*847 Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.