New York Court of Appeals, 1981

In re the Arbitration Between Allen & New York State

New York Court of Appeals · Decided March 31, 1981 · Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer Concur

53 N.Y.2d 694; 421 N.E.2d 498; 439 N.Y.S.2d 103; 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2343

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Ford v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Matter of Certain Controversies Between Social Serv. Empls. Union, Local 371 v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Drasgow (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re the Arbitration between Gleason & Michael Vee, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Town of Huntington v. Local 342, Long Island Public Service Employees (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Szabados v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
Kafenbaum v. Jacob Parmett, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
State v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Cortale v. Schweitzer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
In re the Arbitration between the Town of Haverstraw & Rockland County Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Monroe County Deputy Sheriff's Local 2964 v. County of Monroe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*696 The arbitration agreement expressly authorized the disciplinary arbitrator to determine the “appropriateness of proposed penalties” and further provided that the arbitrator “has full authority, if the remedy proposed by the State is found to be inappropriate to devise an appropriate remedy including an increase in the penalty sought by the State”. In view of the breadth of these explicit provisions of disciplinary power, it cannot be said that the arbitrator acted in excess of his jurisdiction in construing the agreement so as to permit him to allow the State to amend the penalty proposed by it in its “notice of discipline”, a proposal which still left him free to ultimately reject or accept the penalty in whole or in part (see Board of Educ. v Bellmore-Merrick United Secondary Teachers, 39 NY2d 167, 172). Additionally, we note that, even if the State’s brief to the arbitrator should not have included the extrahearing statements, as to which in any event no prejudice or reliance thereon has been demonstrated, it is basic that an arbitrator’s award, so long as it stays within the bounds of rationality, may not be vacated for errors of law or fact (see Matter of Board of Educ. [Hess], 49 NY2d 145, 151-152; Lentine v Fundaro, 29 NY2d 382, 385).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.