Opinion
10-05-2016
In the Matter of CITY OF LONG BEACH, appellant, v. LONG BEACH PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, Local 287, formerly known as Uniformed Firefighters Association, Local 287, respondent.
Robert M. Agostisi, Corporation Counsel, Long Beach, NY, for appellant. Law Offices of Louis D. Stober, Jr., LLC, Garden City, NY, for respondent.
Robert M. Agostisi, Corporation Counsel, Long Beach, NY, for appellant.
Law Offices of Louis D. Stober, Jr., LLC, Garden City, NY, for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award rendered after a hearing, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), dated June 5, 2014, as denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“ ‘Judicial review of an arbitrator's award is extremely limited’ ” (Matter of Town of Babylon v. Carson, 111 A.D.3d 951, 953, 976 N.Y.S.2d 501, quoting Pearlman v. Pearlman, 169 A.D.2d 825, 826, 565 N.Y.S.2d 195 ). A court may vacate an arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii) “only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power” (Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 N.Y.3d 530, 534, 914 N.Y.S.2d 67, 939 N.E.2d 1197 ; see Matter of Gaymon v. MTA Bus Co., 117 A.D.3d 735, 985 N.Y.S.2d 137 ).
Here, contrary to the contention of the appellant, the arbitrator did not apply an incorrect standard of review to the proceedings (see Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 N.Y.3d at 534, 914 N.Y.S.2d 67, 939 N.E.2d 1197 ; Matter of Gaymon v. MTA Bus Co., 117 A.D.3d 735, 985 N.Y.S.2d 137 ). Further, the award did not violate public policy, was not irrational, and did not clearly exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power (see Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. Transport Workers Union of Am., Local 100, 14 N.Y.3d 119, 123, 897 N.Y.S.2d 689, 924 N.E.2d 797 ; Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL–CIO v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of NY, 1 N.Y.3d 72, 79, 769 N.Y.S.2d 451, 801 N.E.2d 827 ; see also Matter of Schroeder v. Scoppetta, 77 A.D.3d 840, 909 N.Y.S.2d 537 ; Matter of McDougall v. Scoppetta, 76 A.D.3d 338, 342–343, 905 N.Y.S.2d 262 ; Matter of Berger v. Board of Fire Commr. of the Jericho
Fire Dist., 71 A.D.3d 881, 882, 897 N.Y.S.2d 180 ). Since the respondent did not cross-appeal, the issue of the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of its cross motion which was for the imposition of sanctions is not properly before this Court (see Emanuel v. MMI Mech., Inc., 131 A.D.3d 1002, 1003, 16 N.Y.S.3d 285 ). We decline the respondent's request to impose sanctions against the appellant in connection with the appeal (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 ).