Opinion
2002-03059
Argued November 7, 2002.
December 2, 2002.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award denying the petitioner's application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), which denied the petition.
Russell A. Schindler, Kingston, N.Y., for appellant.
Ian G. MacDonald, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Keith P. Byron of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner, a correction officer employed by the County of Dutchess, allegedly sustained physical injuries while on duty, when the chair in which he was seated inside the control room at the County jail collapsed beneath him. The petitioner was denied benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c at the administrative level. Pursuant to the relevant grievance resolution provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the petitioner's union and the County, he sought arbitration of the issue of his entitlement to such benefits. The arbitrator determined that the petitioner was not entitled to benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c because his alleged injuries did not arise from any work-related activities that exposed him to "heightened risks and duties" specific to his employment. The petitioner sought to vacate this award as contrary to public policy. The Supreme Court denied the petition. We affirm.
Judicial intervention is to be narrowly exercised in arbitration matters where parties have freely exercised their rights to refer matters to determination by arbitrators. To void an arbitration award on public policy grounds, the award must appear "on its face" to be contrary to public policy (Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. Transport Workers Union of Am., 99 N.Y.2d 1 [Oct. 10, 2002]; see Matter of County of Nassau v. Sheriff's Officers Assn., 294 A.D.2d 31.
In this case, the petitioner failed to identify any applicable public policy precluding the arbitrator's determination denying his application for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c. To the contrary, the arbitrator's decision was consistent with the overwhelming weight of decisional authority (see Matter of Clements v. Panzarella, 297 A.D.2d 4; Matter of Stalter v. Scarpato, 297 A.D.2d 382; Matter of Theroux v. Reilly, 297 A.D.2d 384; Matter of Sills v. Livingston, 294 A.D.2d 922; Matter of Travison v. County of Albany, 291 A.D.2d 705, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 605; Matter of Sutherland v. Village of Suffern, 289 A.D.2d 582; Matter of Ertner v. County of Chenango, 280 A.D.2d 851). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the petition.
ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, LUCIANO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.