IN RE: Tawannah JORDAN (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award dated January 10, 2023, and a related proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, inter alia, to vacate an arbitration award dated May 18, 2023, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patria Frias–Colón, J.), entered January 11, 2024.  The order denied the petition, inter alia, to vacate the arbitration award dated May 18, 2023, in effect, confirmed that arbitration award, denied, as academic, the petition to confirm the arbitration award dated January 10, 2023, and, in effect, dismissed the proceedings.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

New York City Transit (hereinafter the Transit Authority) suspended the petitioner's employment without pay.  In an arbitration award dated January 10, 2023 (hereinafter the January 2023 award), the arbitrator determined that the appropriate discipline for the petitioner was a time-served suspension and completion of an anger management program.  In a second arbitration award, dated May 18, 2023 (hereinafter the May 2023 award), the arbitrator determined that the January 2023 award made the petitioner's completion of the anger management program a condition precedent to her reinstatement.  In connection with these awards, the petitioner commenced two related proceedings against the Transit Authority pursuant to CPLR article 75:  the first to confirm the January 2023 award and the second, inter alia, to vacate the May 2023 award.  In an order entered January 11, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the petition, among other things, to vacate the May 2023 award, in effect, confirmed the May 2023 award, denied, as academic, the petition to confirm the January 2023 award, and, in effect, dismissed the proceedings.  The petitioner appeals.

“ ‘It is well settled that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited.  An arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached’ ” (Matter of Adams v. Veolia Transp. Servs., 242 A.D.3d 1196, 1197, 245 N.Y.S.3d 163, quoting 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 party seeking to overturn an arbitration award bears a heavy burden and must establish a ground for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence” (Matter of Board of Educ. of the Yonkers City Sch. Dist. v. Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, 185 A.D.3d 811, 812, 125 N.Y.S.3d 585;  see Matter of NRT N.Y., LLC v. St. Arromand, 216 A.D.3d 641, 642, 187 N.Y.S.3d 107).  “ ‘[A]n arbitrator's award should not be vacated for errors of law and fact committed by the arbitrator and the courts should not assume the role of overseers to mold the award to conform to their sense of justice’ ” (Matter of Tauber v. Gross, 216 A.D.3d 1066, 1068, 190 N.Y.S.3d 408, quoting Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d at 479–480, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201).  “ ‘Where, as here, an arbitration award was rendered after a consensual arbitration process pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, the award may not be vacated on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his or her power unless it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator's power’ ” (Matter of Henry v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd., 230 A.D.3d 1241, 1242, 216 N.Y.S.3d 737, quoting Matter of Lewis v. New York City Tr. Auth., 183 A.D.3d 738, 738, 121 N.Y.S.3d 883;  see CPLR 7511[b][1][iii] ).  “An award ‘is irrational only where there is no proof whatever to justify the award’ ” (Matter of Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 216 A.D.3d 644, 645, 187 N.Y.S.3d 768, quoting Matter of Reddy v. Schaffer, 123 A.D.3d 935, 937, 1 N.Y.S.3d 123).

Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the May 2023 award violated this standard (see Matter of Aeneas McDonald Police Benevolent Assn. v. City of Geneva, 92 N.Y.2d 326, 333, 680 N.Y.S.2d 887, 703 N.E.2d 745;  Matter of Professional Firefighters Assn. of Nassau County, Local 1588, Intl. Assn. of Firefighters, AFL–CIO v. Village of Garden City, 119 A.D.3d 803, 803, 989 N.Y.S.2d 327).  Moreover, the May 2023 award was not indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR 7511, as it did not leave the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations, it resolved the controversy before the arbitrator, and it did not create a new controversy (see id. § 7511[b][1][iii];  Matter of County of Nassau v Nassau County Sheriff's Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc., 213 A.D.3d 661, 663, 183 N.Y.S.3d 504;  Matter of Rokeach v. Salamon, 193 A.D.3d 937, 939, 142 N.Y.S.3d 420).

“[A]rbitrators relinquish all powers over the parties to the arbitration upon issuance of a final award and, therefore, are precluded from modifying or reconsidering that award” (American Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Allied Capital Corp., 35 N.Y.3d 64, 71, 125 N.Y.S.3d 340, 149 N.E.3d 33;  see Matter of County of Nassau v. Nassau County Sheriff's Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc., 213 A.D.3d at 663, 183 N.Y.S.3d 504).  Here, the May 2023 award did not improperly modify the January 2023 award, which was indefinite and nonfinal insofar as it left the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations regarding the duration of the petitioner's suspension (see Matter of Rosenberg v. Schwartz, 176 A.D.3d 1069, 1071, 110 N.Y.S.3d 119;  Matter of Board of Educ. of Amityville Union Free School Dist. v. Amityville Teacher's Assn., 62 A.D.3d 992, 994, 880 N.Y.S.2d 138).

The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.

GENOVESI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and VENTURA, JJ., concur.