Opinion
10597 Index 26176/17E
12-19-2019
In re Carlos FERNANDEZ, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Respondent–Respondent.
Alan H. Krystal, P.C., Nesconset (Alan H. Krystal of counsel), for appellant. David Farber, Brooklyn (Daniel Chiu of counsel), for respondent.
Alan H. Krystal, P.C., Nesconset (Alan H. Krystal of counsel), for appellant.
David Farber, Brooklyn (Daniel Chiu of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Manzanet–Daniels, Kapnick, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered October 5, 2018, which denied the petition to vacate the arbitration award, dated April 25, 2017, which demoted petitioner from bus driver to cleaner, and dismissed the proceeding against respondent New York City Transit Authority (N.Y.CTA), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
On a prior appeal in this proceeding, this Court vacated the arbitration award sustaining NYCTA's decision to terminate petitioner's employment, and remanded the matter for imposition of a lesser penalty ( Matter of Fernandez v. New York City Tr. Auth. , 120 A.D.3d 407, 990 N.Y.S.2d 519 [1st Dept. 2014] ). During the second arbitration, held upon remand, petitioner testified that he had recently pleaded guilty to reckless driving in Ohio. The arbitrator properly considered this conviction, in conjunction with the original offense of engaging in lewd activity in public, in demoting petitioner to the position of cleaner. Thus, there was sufficient proof to justify the award ( Matter of Roberts v. City of New York , 118 A.D.3d 615, 617, 988 N.Y.S.2d 616 [1st Dept. 2014] ). Moreover, the arbitrator did impose a lesser penalty, as this Court directed in its 2014 order, by demoting petitioner rather than terminating his employment.
Petitioner has also failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator was biased (see Matter of Infosafe Sys. [Intl. Dev. Partners] , 228 A.D.2d 272, 643 N.Y.S.2d 585 [1st Dept. 1996] ). The arbitrator awarded petitioner back pay, over NYCTA's objections, which evidences a lack of bias. Moreover, a review of the hearing transcript reveals that the arbitrator considered all of the circumstances and relevant evidence in reaching his decision (compare Matter of Principe v. New York City Dept. of Educ. , 94 A.D.3d 431, 941 N.Y.S.2d 574 [1st Dept. 2012], affd 20 N.Y.3d 963, 958 N.Y.S.2d 325, 982 N.E.2d 88 [2012] ). Even if the arbitrator had erred in failing to fully consider an alternative position such as a Driller or Shifter, as petitioner suggests, this was, at worst, "an error in judgment, which is not a basis for setting aside the determination" ( Matter of County of Westchester v. Doyle , 43 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 842 N.Y.S.2d 500 [2d Dept. 2007] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.