MATTER OF FERNANDEZ v. NEW YORK CITY TR. AUTH., 139 A.D.3d 417 (2016)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20160503458
Visitors: 3
Filed: May 03, 2016
Latest Update: May 03, 2016
Summary: On a prior appeal in this CPLR article 75 proceeding, this Court vacated the arbitration award sustaining respondent New York City Transit Authority's (NYCTA) decision to terminate petitioner's employment, and remanded the matter for imposition of a lesser penalty ( Matter of Fernandez v New York City Tr. Auth., 120 A.D.3d 407 [1st Dept 2014]). On remand, Supreme Court usurped the arbitrator's authority when it imposed a lesser penalty, since the matter should have been remitted to the arb
Summary: On a prior appeal in this CPLR article 75 proceeding, this Court vacated the arbitration award sustaining respondent New York City Transit Authority's (NYCTA) decision to terminate petitioner's employment, and remanded the matter for imposition of a lesser penalty ( Matter of Fernandez v New York City Tr. Auth., 120 A.D.3d 407 [1st Dept 2014]). On remand, Supreme Court usurped the arbitrator's authority when it imposed a lesser penalty, since the matter should have been remitted to the arbi..
More
On a prior appeal in this CPLR article 75 proceeding, this Court vacated the arbitration award sustaining respondent New York City Transit Authority's (NYCTA) decision to terminate petitioner's employment, and remanded the matter for imposition of a lesser penalty (Matter of Fernandez v New York City Tr. Auth., 120 A.D.3d 407 [1st Dept 2014]). On remand, Supreme Court usurped the arbitrator's authority when it imposed a lesser penalty, since the matter should have been remitted to the arbitrator for a rehearing and new determination as to the appropriate lesser penalty (CPLR 7511 [d]; see Matter of Board of Educ. of E. Hampton Union Free School Dist. v Yusko, 269 A.D.2d 445, 446 [2d Dept 2000]). The matter should be remitted to the original arbitrator, because there has been no showing that the original arbitrator is biased or otherwise incapable of carrying out his duties (see Sawtelle v Waddell & Reed, 304 A.D.2d 103, 117 [1st Dept 2003]).
We have considered NYCTA's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Source: Leagle
