Opinion
2003-00174, 2003-02780, 2003-02782.
Decided March 29, 2004.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
Slade Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey C. Slade of counsel), for appellant.
Charlene M. Indelicato, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Stacey Dolgin-Kmetz and Linda M. Trentacoste of counsel), for respondent County of Westchester.
Oxman Tulis Kirkpatrick Whyatt Geiger, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Lois N. Rosen of counsel), for respondents Westchester Community College, Joseph N. Hankin, and Renee Guy.
DECISION ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Renee Guy, an Associate Dean of the respondent Westchester Community College, dated July 26, 2000, terminating the petitioner's employment, the petitioner appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), entered November 15, 2002, (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court entered February 10, 2003, as denied his motion to impose a sanction upon the respondents, and (3) an amended judgment of the same court entered February 10, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the appeal from the judgment entered November 15, 2002, is dismissed, as the judgment was superseded by the amended judgment entered February 10, 2003; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered February 10, 2003, is dismissed, as the order is not appealable as of right ( see CPLR 5701[b][1]), and we decline to grant leave because the order was superseded by the amended judgment and will be reviewed on the appeal therefrom ( see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248).
ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Once a controversy is heard and a decision has been made by either an arbitrator, a commissioner, or a judge, "that is the end of the matter" ( Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 3 of Town of Huntington v. Associated Teachers of Huntington, 30 N.Y.2d 122, 132; see Matter of Board of Educ., Commack Union Free School Dist. v. Ambach, 70 N.Y.2d 501, 508, cert denied 586 U.S. 1034; Dye v. New York City Tr. Auth., 88 A.D.2d 899, affd 57 N.Y.2d 917; Matter of Kavoukian v. Bethlehem Cent. School Dist., 63 A.D.2d 767, 768-769). Here, because the issue presented by the petitioner in this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 is substantively the same as that previously determined against him in an arbitration proceeding, the proceeding must be dismissed.
Furthermore, the doctrine of res judicata applies to arbitration awards, including those rendered pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement which, as here, specifies that all parties will be bound by the award with the same force and effect as applies to judgments of the courts ( see Matter of Ranni [Ross], 58 N.Y.2d 715, 717; McNally Intl. Corp. v. New York Infirmary-Beekman Downtown Hosp., 145 A.D.2d 417; Dye v. New York City Tr. Auth., supra). New York courts apply the transactional analysis approach to res judicata issues ( see O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357-358; cf. Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.2d 343, 347-348). Once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred even if based upon different theories or if seeking different remedies ( see O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, supra). In this case, the previous arbitration proceeding bars this proceeding because it is premised on the same series of transactions passed upon by the arbitrator.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.