In re the Arbitration between City of Niagara Falls & Niagara Falls Police Club, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 1327 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
In re the Arbitration between City of Niagara Falls & Niagara Falls Police Club, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 1327 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re the Arbitration Between County of Monroe & Civil Service Employees Ass'n, Local 828 (nyappdiv, 2017-06-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re the Arbitration Between County of Monroe & Civil Service Employees Ass'n, Local 828
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The grievance clause in the 1994-1999 CBA specifically excludes retirement benefits from the grievance and arbitration procedure (cf. Matter of City of Niagara Falls [Niagara Falls Police Club Inc.], 52 AD3d 1327, 1327 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pandajis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Furthermore, although there was a potential conflict of interest arising from the prior representation of the prosecution witness by other, former members of trial counsel’s office (see People v Davis, 83 AD3d 1492, 1492 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 815 [2011], reconsideration denied 17 NY3d 903 [2011]; People v Taylor, 52 AD3d 1327, 1328 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 835 [2008]), the record establishes that the court, upon learning of the potential conflict of interest, conducted an inquiry “to ascertain, on the record, [that defendant] had an awareness of the potential risks involved in his con…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pandajis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Furthermore, although there was a potential conflict of interest arising from the prior representation of the prosecution witness by other, former members of trial counsel’s office (see People v Davis, 83 AD3d 1492, 1492 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 815 [2011], reconsideration denied 17 NY3d 903 [2011]; People v Taylor, 52 AD3d 1327, 1328 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 835 [2008]), the record establishes that the court, upon learning of the potential conflict of interest, conducted an inquiry “to ascertain, on the record, [that defendant] had an awareness of the potential risks involved in his con…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Sherwood
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
As to the other allegation, which involved the victim's brother more than 10 years prior to the trial, the basis for defendant's assertion that this allegation was false was that the victim had since gone to live with her brother and saw him as "a trusted figure." Defendant pointed to nothing else to demonstrate the falsity of these allegations. [FN1] Thus, under these circumstances, we discern no abuse of discretion in County Court's decision not to allow defendant to cross-examine the victim regarding these prior allegations given that he "failed to sufficiently prove the falsity of the [pri…
discussed Cited "see" VILLAGE OF KENMORE, MTR. OF
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Here, it is undisputed that there is no prohibition against arbitration, thus satisfying the first step (see Mariano, 92 AD3d at 1233 ; Matter of City of Ithaca [Ithaca Paid Fire Fighters Assn., IAFF, Local 737], 29 AD3d 1129, 1130-1131 ; see generally Matter of City of Niagara Falls [Niagara Falls Police Club Inc.], 52 AD3d 1327, 1327 ).
discussed Cited "see" In re Arbitration between Village of Kenmore & Kenmore Club Police Benevolent Ass'n
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Here, it is undisputed that there is no prohibition against arbitration, thus satisfying the first step (see Mariano, 92 AD3d at 1233 ; Matter of City of Ithaca [Ithaca Paid Fire Fighters Assn., IAFF, Local 737], 29 AD3d 1129, 1130-1131 [2006]; see generally Matter of City of Niagara Falls [Niagara Falls Police Club Inc.], 52 AD3d 1327, 1327 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see" In re Arbitration between Village of Kenmore & Kenmore Club Police Benevolent Ass'n
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Here, it is undisputed that there is no prohibition against arbitration, thus satisfying the first step (see Mariano, 92 AD3d at 1233 ; Matter of City of Ithaca [Ithaca Paid Fire Fighters Assn., IAFF, Local 737], 29 AD3d 1129, 1130-1131 [2006]; see generally Matter of City of Niagara Falls [Niagara Falls Police Club Inc.], 52 AD3d 1327, 1327 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Arbitration between City of Niagara Falls, and Niagara Falls Police Club, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 13, 2008.
52 A.D.3d 1327
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Frank Caruso, J.), entered April 23, 2007 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The order and judgment denied the petition for a stay of arbitration.

It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the petition seeking a stay of arbitration. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the parties’ dispute over healthcare benefits for retired police officers is properly the subject of arbitration based on the terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA) (see generally Matter of City of Ithaca [Ithaca Paid Fire Fighters Assn., IAFF, Local 737], 29 AD3d 1129, 1130-1132 [2006]). Pursuant to the CBA, there is a grievance procedure for any dispute that arises “concerning the interpretation or application of the terms of this contract or of the rights claimed to exist, hereunder,” and the CBA further provides that, in the event that there is not a satisfactory resolution of a grievance, “either party may seek resolution by arbitration.” The CBA expressly refers to retirement benefits in defining the term grievance, and the grievance procedure set forth in the CBA is “not predicated upon the status of the affected beneficiaries (as active employee or retiree)” (City of Ithaca, 29 AD3d at 1132; see Ledain v Town of Ontario, 192 Misc 2d 247, 252-253 [2002], affd 305 AD2d 1094 [2003]; see also Matter of Jefferson-Lewis-Hamilton-Herkimer-Oneida BOCES [Jefferson-Lewis-Hamilton-Herkimer-Oneida BOCES Professional Assn., Local 2784], 247 AD2d 829 [1998] ; City of Buffalo v A.F.S.C.M.E. Council 35, Local 264, 107 AD2d 1049). We thus conclude that respondent is entitled to pursue arbitration on behalf of the retirees. Present—Centra, J.P, Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Gorski, JJ.