From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ray v. N.Y. City Dept., Correction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 7, 1995
212 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 7, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.).


The application was properly denied, respondent's inadvertent default notwithstanding, on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust the administrative remedies set forth in the collective bargaining agreement (Matter of Plummer v. Klepak, 48 N.Y.2d 486). That this was the inexcusable fault of his union does not alter the situation.

Petitioner's argument that the exhaustion doctrine does not apply because the agreement does not cover out-of-title work (Matter of Dombroski v. Bloom, 170 A.D.2d 805), is belied by the agreement itself. Petitioner argues that even if the agreement does cover out-of-title work he also has a right to payment under Labor Law § 220, but we reject his analogy to the exception to the exhaustion doctrine enjoyed by seamen and based on reasons unique to the maritime industry (see, Lamont v. United States, 613 F. Supp. 588).

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Ray v. N.Y. City Dept., Correction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 7, 1995
212 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Ray v. N.Y. City Dept., Correction

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CHARLES RAY, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 7, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 387 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
622 N.Y.S.2d 40

Citing Cases

Santiago v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

OpinionOrders, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered August 19, 2013, which granted…

Santiago v.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered August 19, 2013, which granted…