Opinion
06-28-2017
In the Matter of TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF GREATER NEW YORK, LOCAL 100, AFL–CIO, et al., appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, respondent.
Jade Morrison, Brooklyn, NY (Richard Soto of counsel), for appellants. James B. Henly, Brooklyn, NY (Mariel A. Thompson of counsel), for respondent.
Jade Morrison, Brooklyn, NY (Richard Soto of counsel), for appellants.
James B. Henly, Brooklyn, NY (Mariel A. Thompson of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jimenez–Salta, J.), dated November 6, 2015, which denied the petition and confirmed the award.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Although judicial review of arbitration awards is limited (see Matter of Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. County of Westchester, 81 A.D.3d 966, 967, 917 N.Y.S.2d 882 ), an award will be vacated when the arbitrator making the award "so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made" (CPLR 7511[b][1][iii] ; see Matter of Andrews v. County of Rockland, 120 A.D.3d 1227, 1228, 992 N.Y.S.2d 131 ). An award will be vacated as indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR 7511 if it does not "dispose of a particular issue raised by the parties" (Hamilton Partners v. Singer, 290 A.D.2d 316, 316, 736 N.Y.S.2d 219 ; see Matter of Andrews v. County of Rockland, 120 A.D.3d at 1228, 992 N.Y.S.2d 131 ), or " ‘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’ " (Matter of Westchester County Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. Cheverko, 112 A.D.3d 840, 841, 978 N.Y.S.2d 58, quoting Matter of Meisels v. Uhr, 79 N.Y.2d 526, 536, 583 N.Y.S.2d 951, 593 N.E.2d 1359 ).
Here, contrary to the petitioners' contention, the arbitrator's award did not leave any matter submitted by the parties open for future contention, and thus, it was definite and final (see Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v. County of Nassau, 305 A.D.2d 498, 499, 759 N.Y.S.2d 540 ; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steiner, 227 A.D.2d 563, 564, 643 N.Y.S.2d 373 ; cf. Matter of Delaney Group, Inc. [Holmgren Enters., Inc.], 126 A.D.3d 1212, 1216, 3 N.Y.S.3d 787 ).
The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit.
CHAMBERS, J.P., MILLER, MALTESE and DUFFY, JJ., concur.