Opinion
02-24-2016
In the Matter of Maria COLLAZO, appellant, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY, respondent.
Law Office of David McGruder, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant. Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Rudolph M. Baptisteand Leonard Kapsalis of counsel), for respondent.
Law Office of David McGruder, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Rudolph M. Baptisteand Leonard Kapsalis of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated June 30, 2012, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Garguilo, J.), dated January 2, 2014, which denied the petition.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding to vacate an arbitration award recommending certain disciplinary action against her with respect to her employment with Suffolk County. Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that any misconduct on the part of the arbitrator prejudiced her rights or the integrity of the arbitration process (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 ; Matter of Mounier v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 36 A.D.3d 617, 617, 827 N.Y.S.2d 868 ; Matter of Hausknecht v. Comprehensive Med. Care of N.Y., P.C., 24 A.D.3d 778, 779–780, 809 N.Y.S.2d 85 ; cf. Matter of Goldfinger v. Lisker, 68 N.Y.2d 225, 232, 508 N.Y.S.2d 159, 500 N.E.2d 857 ).
Moreover, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the charges against her were timely served within 18 months of her alleged misconduct in connection with her employment (see Matter of Mikoleski v. Bratton, 249 A.D.2d 83, 84, 671 N.Y.S.2d 75 ; Matter of Nagle v. Bratton, 245 A.D.2d 122, 122, 665 N.Y.S.2d 886 ).
The parties' remaining contentions either are improperly raised for the first time on appeal or need not be reached in light of our determination.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition to vacate the arbitration award.
RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.