From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

County of Rockland v. Rockland County Unit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 1986
125 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

December 22, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Martin, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Special Term did not err in granting the petitioner's application since the claim sought to be arbitrated was outside the scope of the arbitration provisions of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The instant claim arises out of an alleged violation of the grievance procedures under "Appendix D" of the "Rockland Community College Grievance Procedure for the Review of Allegations of Illegal Discrimination or Sexual Harassment". The appellants concede that appendix D was not incorporated into or made a part of the collective bargaining agreement. In the absence of a valid and specific agreement between the parties evidencing an intent to arbitrate claims arising under appendix D, the petitioner's motion to stay arbitration was properly granted (see, Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 N.Y.2d 1, 7; Matter of Board of Educ. v. West Babylon Teachers Assn., 52 N.Y.2d 1002). Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Bracken and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

County of Rockland v. Rockland County Unit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 1986
125 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

County of Rockland v. Rockland County Unit

Case Details

Full title:COUNTY OF ROCKLAND, Respondent, v. ROCKLAND COUNTY UNIT OF THE ROCKLAND…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 22, 1986

Citations

125 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Matter of West Genesee Central School Dist

Memorandum: The dispute involving the Strategic Planning Team does not fall within the scope of the…

Matter of County of Dutchess

Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the Supreme Court properly entertained the petitioner's application…