From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Organization of Staff v. City of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 3, 2000
277 A.D.2d 23 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

November 3, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J.), entered on or about June 29, 1999, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR Article 75 to confirm an arbitration award rendered January 8, 1998 in favor of petitioner and denied petitioner's application for a re-hearing made on the grounds that the award's language was indefinite, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Jeffrey L. Kreisberg, for petitioner-appellant.

Elizabeth I. Freedman, for respondents-respondents.

Before: Williams, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Wallach, Saxe, JJ.


The court properly granted the cross motion to dismiss the petition as academic (see, CPLR 3211[a][7], 404[a]), since respondents had fully and completely satisfied the arbitration award by compensating petitioner for her wrongful demotion. Further, as the parties had specified the boundaries of the arbitration to cover only petitioner's demotion, the court properly found that the arbitration clearly did not encompass the question of petitioner's later termination.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Organization of Staff v. City of N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 3, 2000
277 A.D.2d 23 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Organization of Staff v. City of N.Y

Case Details

Full title:ORGANIZATION OF STAFF ANALYSTS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. THE CITY OF NEW…

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

Date published: Nov 3, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 23 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
714 N.Y.S.2d 493

Citing Cases

Parkway Trading Grp. Corp. v. Blesofsky

With this pre-answer motion, defendant Raskin seeks an order, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (a)(7),…

Bernstein v. Sovereign

Although petitioners correctly argue that Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. supports Supreme Court's determination…