Because petitioner has already sold its buses and leased its garage, compliance with the order may require taxpayer approval ( see Education Law § 416; Local Finance Law § 37.00), which may or may not be forthcoming, and could be delayed by petitioner's contractual obligations. Under these unique circumstances, we find that enforcement of the current order is unreasonable ( see Matter of Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 8 AD3d 958, 958; Matter of Town of Clay v Helsby, 51 AD2d at 208; Matter of Germantown Cent. School Dist. v Public Empl. Relations Bd. of State of NY, 205 AD2d 961, 963), and we remit the matter to PERB to fashion a remedy that will allow for the contingencies that could prevent petitioner's compliance ( see e.g. Matter of Chautauqua County Empls. Unit 6300, Chautauqua County Local 807, CSEA, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO [County of Chautauqua], 21 PERB ¶ 4588 [1988]).
Before: Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ. Motions for reargument granted and, upon reargument, the memorandum and order entered June 14, 2004 is amended by providing in the ordering paragraph and the last sentence of the memorandum that the counterclaim for enforcement is granted. [ See 8 AD3d 958 (2004).]