Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Iris WEINSHALL, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Transportation, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. MARINE ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered October 17, 2006, confirming an arbitrator's reinstatement of respondent Lupo with compensation for the period since his termination of employment as a mate on the Staten Island Ferry, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
“An arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator ‘offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached’ ” (Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 471, 479, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201 [2006], cert. dismissed 548 U.S. 940, 127 S.Ct. 342, 165 L.Ed.2d 1012 [2006] ). Clear evidence supports the arbitrator's decision.
A public policy the violation of which warrants vacatur of an arbitration award must entail “strong and well-defined policy considerations embodied in constitutional, statutory or common law [that] prohibit a particular matter from being decided or certain relief from being granted by an arbitrator” (Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v. State of New York, 94 N.Y.2d 321, 327, 704 N.Y.S.2d 910, 726 N.E.2d 462 [1999] ). Based on the practices in effect at the time, and the lack of clarity or training in connection with the directive in question, the IAS court properly confirmed the arbitrator's award.
We have considered petitioners' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 13, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)