You are here: / / CPLR 7511 Review of Compulsory Arbitration Under the Education Law
, ,

CPLR 7511 Review of Compulsory Arbitration Under the Education Law

The First Department explained and applied the principles of a CPLR 7511 review of a hearing officer’s determination after compulsory arbitration pursuant to the Education Law. The case concerned allegations of inappropriate touching of students by a tenured school librarian.  In affirming the hearing officer’s findings and penalty, the Court noted that “ ‘ where the parties have submitted to compulsory arbitration, judicial scrutiny is stricter than that for a determination rendered where the parties have submitted to voluntary arbitration’ … . [T]he determination must be in accord with due process and supported by adequate evidence, and must also be rational and satisfy the arbitrary and capricious standards of CPLR article 78’ …”.  In re Ash v New York City Board/Dept of Education, 8655, 108528/10 1st Dept. 3-5-13

 

 

You might also like
Questions of Fact About the Sequence of Two Rear-End Collisions Precluded Summary Judgment
PASSING REFERENCES TO DEFENDANTS’ INSURANCE COVERAGE IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT (FIRST DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF NEGLECT FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SHELTER (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO FILE AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITHIN 20 DAYS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; SERVICE IS DEEMED COMPLETE 10 DAYS AFTER FILING A MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITH THE AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLAINTIFF FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
WHERE FRAUD IS THE BASIS OF A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS SIX YEARS (FIRST DEPT).
THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN AN “ALTERING” ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 AND THE ACCIDENT–AN OBJECT FALLING DOWN A MANHOLE AND STRIKING PLAINTIFF–WAS ELEVATION-RELATED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Question of Fact Existed About Whether Lost or Destroyed Will Had Been Revo... State Equal Access to Justice Act