Opinion
December 8, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The standards of CPLR article 78 are not available to broaden review of an arbitration award. The parties may not vary by agreement the exclusive and narrow CPLR article 75 grounds for review of such awards, as they are designed to effect public policy encouraging arbitration and discouraging litigation over arbitration awards (see, Integrated Sales v. Maxell Corp., 94 A.D.2d 221, 224; Kwasnik v. Willo Packing Co., 61 A.D.2d 791, 793; Levine v. Klein, 70 A.D.2d 532).
Under the standards of CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) the arbitrator's award was not violative of strong public policy, was not totally irrational, and did not exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power (see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 308; Matter of Albany County Sheriff's Local 775 [County of Albany], 63 N.Y.2d 654). The arbitrator's determination that the County Executive abused his discretion under the agreement is rational. The County Executive had the discretion to declare a snow emergency and to permit employee absences without charging the lost time to leave accruals. He did not declare an emergency and by charging the absences of employees from the heavily hit Riverhead area to accruals, he indirectly encouraged violation of the lawful directives of the town closing its roads. "Parties who agree to refer contract disputes to arbitration must recognize that '"[a]rbitrators may do justice" and the award may well reflect the spirit rather than the letter of the agreement'" (Matter of Local Div. 1179 [Green Bus Lines], 50 N.Y.2d 1007, 1009, quoting from Rochester City School Dist. v. Rochester Teachers Assn., 41 N.Y.2d 578, 582). Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.