You are here: / / ARBITRATION AWARD WAS INDEFINITE AND NONFINAL (FOURTH DEPT).
, ,

ARBITRATION AWARD WAS INDEFINITE AND NONFINAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the arbitrator’s award concerning the transfer of employees was indefinite and nonfinal:

The arbitration proceeding arose from respondent’s plan to transfer certain employees previously assigned to work at a single location to new positions requiring them to alternate between two different work locations. The arbitrator’s opinion and award, among other things, found that respondent involuntarily transferred the grievants in violation of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, and directed respondent to compensate the grievants “for work performed at more than one location from November 30, 2013 until the end of the 2016 Budget Year.”

We agree with respondent that Supreme Court erred in granting the petition and in denying the cross petition. An arbitration award “shall be vacated” where the arbitrator “so imperfectly executed [the award] that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made”… . “An award is indefinite or nonfinal within the meaning of the statute only if it leaves the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations, if it does not resolve the controversy submitted or if it creates a new controversy’ ” … . Vacatur is appropriate where the award failed to set forth the manner of computing monetary damages… .

… The award does not explain the basis for the compensation allegedly owed to the grievants, nor does it detail how that compensation should be calculated.  Matter of The Professional, Clerical, Tech. Empls. Assn. (Board of Educ. for Buffalo City Sch. Dist.), 2018 NY Slip Op 04128, Fourth Dept 6-8-18​

ARBITRATION (ARBITRATION AWARD WAS INDEFINITE AND NONFINAL (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (ARBITRATION AWARD WAS INDEFINITE AND NONFINAL (FOURTH DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, ARBITRATION AWARD WAS INDEFINITE AND NONFINAL (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ RULING THAT A BREAKWALL AND RETAINING WALLS ON LAKEFRONT PROPERTY WERE FENCES WHICH VIOLATED THE CODE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND WAS ANNULLED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Court Did Not Conduct an Adequate Investigation Into the Allegation of Improper Outside Influence on the Jury Before Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside the Verdict—Matter Sent Back for an Evidentiary Hearing
THE LANGUAGE IN THE HIPAA FORM, INDICATING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICIAN MAY BUT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO SPEAK WITH DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WAS PROPERLY APPROVED BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY SUPPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ALTHOUGH FATHER VOLUNTARILY LEFT A BETTER PAYING JOB IN VIRGINIA, HE DID SO TO BE NEARER TO HIS SON WHO HAD MOVED WITH MOTHER TO NEW YORK FROM VIRGINIA (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER OF METAL ROOFING WAS A CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, EVEN IF IT DID NOT DO SO; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A ROOF WHERE THE METAL ROOFING WAS BEING INSTALLED (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO HOLD A HEARING TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S MENTAL CONDITION AFTER TWO PSYCHIATRISTS FOUND DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITION SEEKING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE INABILITY TO DETERMINE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE NURSING HOME RESIDENT’S ESTRANGED WIFE, COURT MAY NOT CONSIDER THEORY NOT RAISED BEFORE THE AGENCY (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CASE WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF TAX RETURNS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED AT THE TIME OF MOTHER’S DEATH, IF SO, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD PASSED (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BOARD CONSIDERED MEDICAL FILE FROM A PRIOR INJURY WITHOUT NOTICE TO CLAIMANT,... STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, THERE...