Summary
holding arbitration award addressing whether the plaintiff was entitled to overtime under a CBA "may be relevant to the FLSA claim" but "should not be given preclusive effect under the doctrine of collateral estoppel"
Summary of this case from Trask v. Town of AlmaOpinion
November 15, 2001.
Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.
Motion for reconsideration.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted, without costs, and, upon reconsideration, the last sentence on page 3 of this Court's memorandum and order decided and entered July 19, 2001 is amended to read as follows:
To the extent that the State argues, as an alternative basis for affirming, that claimants should be collaterally estopped from raising an FLSA claim based upon their participation in binding arbitration, we conclude that, while the issue decided in the arbitration proceeding between claimants' union and the State may be relevant to the FLSA claim, the arbitration decision should not be given preclusive effect under the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see, Matter of Valentino v. American Airlines, 131 A.D.2d 6, 9; see also, Matter of Rourke v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 201 A.D.2d 179, 182).
Crew III, J.P., Spain, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.