Opinion
110 CA 22-00430
03-17-2023
In the MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN NIAGARA FALLS CAPTAINS AND LIEUTENANTS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner-Appellant, and CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS, Respondent-Respondent.
THE TUTTLE LAW FIRM, CLIFTON PARK (JAMES B. TUTTLE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, BUFFALO (MICHAEL E. HICKEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
THE TUTTLE LAW FIRM, CLIFTON PARK (JAMES B. TUTTLE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, BUFFALO (MICHAEL E. HICKEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, BANNISTER, MONTOUR, AND OGDEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner, Niagara Falls Captains and Lieutenants Association, appeals from an order that denied petitioner's petition seeking to vacate an arbitration award denying petitioner's grievances and confirmed the award. Petitioner contends that the award should be vacated because it fails to meet the standards of finality and definiteness required by CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii). We reject that contention and affirm the order.
It is well settled that "judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited" ( Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc. , 6 N.Y.3d 471, 479, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201 [2006], cert dismissed 548 U.S. 940, 127 S.Ct. 34, 165 L.Ed.2d 1012 [2006] ). Nevertheless, "a court may vacate an arbitrator's award where it finds that the rights of a party were prejudiced when ‘an arbitrator ... exceeded his [or her] power or so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made’ " ( Barone v. Haskins , 193 A.D.3d 1388, 1390, 147 N.Y.S.3d 787 [4th Dept. 2021], appeal dismissed 37 N.Y.3d 1032, 154 N.Y.S.3d 41, 175 N.E.3d 923 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 919, 2022 WL 454145 [2022], quoting CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii] ). "An award is indefinite or nonfinal within the meaning of the statute ‘only if it leaves the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations, if it does not resolve the controversy submitted or if it creates a new controversy’ " ( Yoonessi v. Givens , 78 A.D.3d 1622, 1622-1623, 910 N.Y.S.2d 801 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 718, 2011 WL 5839697 [2011], quoting Matter of Meisels v. Uhr , 79 N.Y.2d 526, 536, 583 N.Y.S.2d 951, 593 N.E.2d 1359 [1992] ; see Matter of Professional, Clerical, Tech. Empls. Assn. [Board of Educ. for Buffalo City Sch. Dist.] , 162 A.D.3d 1479, 1480, 78 N.Y.S.3d 825 [4th Dept. 2018] ).
Here, contrary to petitioner's contention, we conclude that the award sufficiently defined the parties’ rights and obligations with respect to the controversy at issue, i.e., whether respondent, City of Niagara Falls, violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA) or past practice when it failed to immediately fill six specific vacancies (see Matter of Franco v. Dweck , 165 A.D.3d 551, 552, 87 N.Y.S.3d 5 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 903, 2019 WL 1996234 [2019] ; cf. Matter of Buffalo Teachers Fedn., Inc. [Board of Educ. of the Buffalo Pub. Schs.] , 179 A.D.3d 1553, 1555, 118 N.Y.S.3d 343 [4th Dept. 2020] ; Professional, Clerical, Tech. Empls. Assn. , 162 A.D.3d at 1480, 78 N.Y.S.3d 825 ; see generally Meisels , 79 N.Y.2d at 536, 583 N.Y.S.2d 951, 593 N.E.2d 1359 ). Moreover, the "award did not leave any matter submitted by the parties open for future contention, and thus, it was definite and final" ( Matter of Transport Workers Union of Greater N.Y., Local 100, AFL-CIO v. New York City Tr. Auth. , 151 A.D.3d 1067, 1068, 54 N.Y.S.3d 590 [2d Dept. 2017] ; see Yoonessi , 78 A.D.3d at 1623, 910 N.Y.S.2d 801 ; cf. Matter of Andrews v. County of Rockland , 120 A.D.3d 1227, 1228-1229, 992 N.Y.S.2d 131 [2d Dept. 2014], lv dismissed 24 N.Y.3d 1090, 2 N.Y.S.3d 57, 25 N.E.3d 970 [2015] ). The matter submitted by the parties concerned six specific alleged violations of the CBA or past practice, and the award finally and definitely resolved that matter, determining that respondent did not violate either the CBA or past practice when it filled the vacancies as soon as was reasonably possible (cf. Buffalo Teachers Fedn., Inc. , 179 A.D.3d at 1555, 118 N.Y.S.3d 343 ).
Petitioner contends that the determination that past practice required positions to be filled as soon as reasonably possible will create new controversies between the parties in the future inasmuch as there is no definition of what is reasonable. We reject that contention inasmuch as the award completely " ‘dispose[d] of the controversy submitted’ " ( Yoonessi , 78 A.D.3d at 1623, 910 N.Y.S.2d 801 ; cf. Buffalo Teachers Fedn., Inc. , 179 A.D.3d at 1555, 118 N.Y.S.3d 343 ), which was limited to three specific grievances involving six specific actions taken by respondent. The award fully resolved that controversy, denying the grievances and determining that the vacancies were filled in accordance with the past practice of filling vacancies as soon as reasonably possible. As noted, there was nothing "open for future contention" with respect to those three grievances ( Transport Workers Union of Greater N.Y., Local 100, AFL-CIO , 151 A.D.3d at 1068, 54 N.Y.S.3d 590 ) and, as a result, the award did not create any new controversy with respect to those specific grievances.