Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Port Auth. Police Benevolent Assn., Inc.

Matter of Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Port Auth. Police Benevolent Assn., Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 06764 Decided on October 9, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 9, 2012
Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, Román, JJ.
8255 403175/10

[*1]In re The Port Authority Index of New York and New Jersey, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, Inc., Respondent-Respondent.




James M. Begley, New York (Melissa L. Banks of counsel), for
appellant.
Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., New York (Jessica
Drangel Ochs of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered July 13, 2011, which, among other things, denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award in this case was not "totally" irrational, nor did it violate public policy (Matter of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v Chesley, 7 AD3d 368, 372 [1st Dept 2004], quoting Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]). The arbitrator properly found that according to the contract language, there was no "emergency" that justified bypassing the contract's terms regarding assignment of personnel. Further, the award merely enforced the terms of the parties' contract, which already addressed the public policy issues that petitioner raises on this appeal.

The arbitrator did not exceed her powers in making the award, as the contract language to which petitioner points does not address the situation at issue in this matter. Indeed, petitioner itself requested relief that was not specified in the relevant contract language, and therefore cannot now be heard to say that the award exceeded the scope of the arbitrator's authority.

We have considered the remaining contentions, including respondent's request for attorneys' fees and costs, and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 9, 2012 [*2]

CLERK