IN RE: Haroon BAKSH (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to vacate an arbitration determination dated June 9, 2022, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christopher G. Quinn, J.), dated December 7, 2022.  The order and judgment, among other things, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the proceeding is converted into a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 (see CPLR 103[c]);  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed;  and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The petitioner was employed by the respondent as a parking attendant.  After the respondent terminated the petitioner's employment, the petitioner's union presented the respondent with a grievance pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the respondent.  After the union and the respondent were unable to resolve the grievance, the union sought arbitration pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.  The arbitrator upheld the termination of the petitioner's employment.  Thereafter, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to vacate the arbitration determination.  In an order and judgment dated December 7, 2022, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Initially, the proper proceeding for the petitioner to seek review of the arbitration determination is a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 (see Matter of Jasser v Allstate Ins. Co., 77 AD3d 751, 752;  Matter of Rodriguez v New York City Tr. Auth., 269 A.D.2d 600, 600–601).  “[A]ppellate courts are empowered to convert a civil proceeding into one which is proper in form under CPLR 103(c), making whatever order is necessary” (Matter of Jasser v Allstate Ins. Co., 77 AD3d at 752 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  Thus, we convert this proceeding into a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75.

Nevertheless, as the petitioner was not a party to the subject collective bargaining agreement or the subject arbitration, he lacks standing to seek vacatur of the arbitration determination (see Chupka v. Lorenz–Schneider Co., 12 N.Y.2d 1, 6;  Matter of Grant v. Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 98 AD3d 617;  Matter of Gonzalez v. City of Peekskill, 284 A.D.2d 463;  Matter of Wilson v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 261 A.D.2d 409).  The parties' remaining contentions are academic in view of the foregoing.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, inter alia, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

LASALLE, P.J., CONNOLLY, GENOVESI and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.