From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garrido v. De Blasio

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 8, 2022
203 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

Opinion

15476 Index No. 657608/19 Case No. 2021–01217

03-08-2022

In the Matter of Henry GARRIDO, as Executive Director of District Council 37, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. Bill DE BLASIO, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Respondents–Respondents.

Robin Roach, New York (Aaron S. Amaral of counsel), for appellants. Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for respondents.


Robin Roach, New York (Aaron S. Amaral of counsel), for appellants.

Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for respondents.

Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Webber, Kern, Friedman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered March 11, 2021, which denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award upholding the termination of Galvin Dudley from the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners failed to meet their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of fraud or misconduct sufficient to warrant vacatur of the arbitration award under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(i) (see Matter of Field v. BDO USA, LLP, 129 A.D.3d 497, 11 N.Y.S.3d 143 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Financial Clearing & Servs. Corp. v. Katz, 172 A.D.2d 290, 568 N.Y.S.2d 382 [1st Dept. 1991] ). The record is insufficient to establish that DPR intentionally concealed video evidence during the arbitration proceedings. In any event, petitioners failed to demonstrate that the video evidence materially related to an issue in arbitration since, as the arbitrator determined, the hearing testimony was sufficient to uphold DPR's termination of Dudley even without the video evidence (see Imgest Fin. Establishment v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 172 A.D.2d 291, 568 N.Y.S.2d 104 [1st Dept. 1991] ; see also Sorrentino v. Weinman, 50 A.D.3d 305, 854 N.Y.S.2d 711 [1st Dept. 2008] ).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Garrido v. De Blasio

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 8, 2022
203 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
Case details for

Garrido v. De Blasio

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Henry GARRIDO, as Executive Director of District Council…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 8, 2022

Citations

203 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
203 A.D.3d 458