State of New York Unified Court System v. Association of Surrogate's & Supreme Court Reporters

Related Cases

Association of Surrogates & Supreme Court Reporters v. State of New York Unified Court System
Association of Surrogates & Supreme Court Reporters v. State
In re the Arbitration between State of New York & Civil Service Employees Ass'n
Association of Surrogates and Supreme Court Reporters Within the City of New York, Mary O'leary, President Citywide Association of Law Assistants, Barbara Brown, President Court Attorneys Association of the City of New York, Robert Mulhall, President Court Officers Benevolent Association of Nassau Co., Jeffrey Pollac, President District Council 37, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees & Local 1070, Paul Shelkin, President Local 704, Service Employees International Union, John Walsh, President New York State Supreme Court Officers Association, Ila, Local 2013, Afl-Cio, John McKillop President Ninth Judicial District Court Employees Association, Martin Sharp, President Suffolk County Court Employees Association, Inc., Thomas F. McGuinness President the Communications Workers of America, Afl-Cio, Local 1180, Arthur Cheliotes, President Civil Service Forum, Local 200, Seiu, Salvatore Cangiarella, President Janet Foster Susan Glasbrenner Michael Sullivan David Richman Greg Snigor James Dinapoli William Rosario Abel Peltro George F. Berhorn Lisa Rosenzwig and Michael Smith v. State of New York Edward v. Regan, as Comptroller of the State of New York and Robert Abrams, as Attorney General of the State of New York, and Matthew T. Crosson, as Chief Administrator of the Unified Court System and the State of New York Unified Court System
Association of Surrogates and Supreme Court Reporters Within the City of New York, Mary O'leary, President Citywide Association of Law Assistants, Barbara Brown, President Court Attorneys Association of the City of New York, Robert Mulhall, President Court Officers Benevolent Association of Nassau Co., Jeffrey Pollac, President District Council 37, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees & Local 1070, Paul Shelkin, President Local 704, Service Employees International Union, John Walsh, President New York State Supreme Court Officers Association, Ila, Local 2013, Afl-Cio, John McKillop President Ninth Judicial District Court Employees Association, Martin Sharp, President Suffolk County Court Employees Association, Inc., Thomas F. McGuinness President the Communication Workers of America, Afl-Cio, Local 1180, Arthur Cheliotes, President Civil Service Forum, Local 200, Seiu, Salvatore Cangiarella, President Janet Foster Susan Glasbrenner Michael Sullivan David Richman Greg Snigor James Dinapoli William Rosario Abel Peltro George F. Berhorn Lisa Rosenzwig and Michael Smith v. State of New York Edward v. Regan, as Comptroller of the State of New York and Robert Abrams, as Attorney General of the State of New York, and Matthew T. Crosson, as Chief Administrator of the Unified Court System and the State of New York Unified Court System

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), February 29, 2012, compelling arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the arbitration is permanently stayed.

While we find no statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of this dispute as to the termination of an employee (see Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Lake Grove v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., 118 AD2d 781 [2d Dept 1986]), a review of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) discloses that the parties did not agree to arbitrate the dispute (see Matter of County of Chautauqua v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, County of Chautauqua Unit 6300, Chautauqua County Local 807, 8 NY3d 513, 519 [2007]). Article 12.6 of the CBA provides that an employee aggrieved by a penalty or punishment may appeal from the determination by petition to the Chief Administrative Judge or by an application pursuant to CPLR article 78.

Since the issue whether respondent’s claim is a contract griev*622anee or a non-contract grievance does not arise in this matter, article 16.8 of the CBA is not applicable. Concur — Tom, J.E, Acosta, Saxe, Freedman and Feinman, JJ.