IN RE: CITY OF MIDDLETOWN (2020)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated April 29, 2017, in which Paul C. Weissinger and the City of Middletown Police Benevolent Association, Inc., cross-petitioned to confirm the award, the City of Middletown appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Maria Vasquez–Doles, J.), dated October 24, 2017, and (2) an amended order of the same court dated November 2, 2017.  The order and the amended order denied the petition to vacate the arbitration award and granted the cross petition to confirm the arbitration award.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated October 24, 2017, is dismissed, as the order was superseded by the amended order dated November 2, 2017;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the amended order dated November 2, 2017, is affirmed;  and it is further,

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

In 2016, Paul C. Weissinger, who was employed as a detective by the City of Middletown, applied for General Municipal Law § 207–c benefits.  A claims manager denied Weissinger's application as untimely, and the matter proceeded to arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter the CBA) between the City and Weissinger's union, the City of Middletown Police Benevolent Association, Inc (hereinafter the union).  The arbitrator interpreted the disputed provisions of the CBA and found that the claims manager's denial of the application as untimely was not reasonable.  The City petitioned to vacate the award and Weissinger and the union cross-petitioned to confirm the award.  The Supreme Court denied the petition and granted the cross petition, and the City appeals.

“Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited” (Kotlyar v. Khlebopros, 176 A.D.3d 793, 795, 109 N.Y.S.3d 449, citing Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 471, 479, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201).  “A court may vacate an arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his [or her] powers within the meaning of CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii) only where the arbitrator's award violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power” (Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works, 155 A.D.3d 1049, 1050, 64 N.Y.S.3d 555 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 N.Y.3d 530, 534, 914 N.Y.S.2d 67, 939 N.E.2d 1197;  Matter of Ross v. New York City Metro. Tr. Auth., 174 A.D.3d 627, 627–628, 101 N.Y.S.3d 879).  Under the statute, “[a]n arbitrator exceeds his or her powers ․ if the award gives a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute and, in effect, makes a new contract for the parties” (Matter of Steinberg v. Novitt & Sahr, 54 A.D.3d 1043, 1044, 863 N.Y.S.2d 919 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Contrary to the City's contention, the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA was not irrational, and did not effectively rewrite the agreement (see id. at 1044, 863 N.Y.S.2d 919).  Further, the arbitrator did not exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on his authority by construing the CBA's terms in light of testimony as to the past practices of the City and the union (see Matter of Piller v. Eisner, 173 A.D.3d 1035, 1037, 103 N.Y.S.3d 125;  Matter of Village of Spring Valley v. Policemen's Benevolent Assn. of Vil. of Spring Valley, 271 A.D.2d 615, 615, 707 N.Y.S.2d 843).

Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying the petition to vacate the arbitration award and granting the cross petition to confirm the arbitration award.

DILLON, J.P., MALTESE, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.