In the Matter of Otu A. Obot, Appellant, New York State Department of
Correctional Services, Respondent.
89 N.Y.2d 883, 675 N.E.2d 1197, 653 N.Y.S.2d 245 ( 1996)
December 19, 1996
4 No. 256 (1996 NY Int. 246)
Decided December 19, 1996
______________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
______________________________________________________________________
Philip B. Abramowitz, for appellant.
Leonard A. Mancini, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed,
without costs.
Petitioner, a correction officer with a 14-year record of
service, was terminated from his position as a result of an incident
in which he allegedly falsely accused another employee
of having sexual relations with an inmate. The employee denied the
misconduct and filed a complaint against petitioner for making a false
report. Petitioner, in turn, denied having made
the statement. The dispute culminated in the filing of disciplinary
charges against petitioner, and the matter proceeded to arbitration in
accordance with the applicable collective
bargaining agreement. Having been represented by an attorney provided
by his union, petitioner was ultimately found guilty of having
violated two departmental rules and was discharged from his position.
Petitioner subsequently brought the present proceeding to
vacate the arbitration award, arguing for the first time that the
charges against him had been initiated to retaliate for his
having testified in a federal court action regarding pervasive racial
bias at a Corrections Department facility. According to petitioner,
he had not raised this argument in the arbitration
proceeding because his union attorney had "listened to none of this,
had no time for it and wanted (him) to plead guilty."
The Supreme Court granted the requested relief and vacated
the arbitration award. On respondent's appeal, however, the Appellate
Division reversed and reinstated the award. We agree with the
Appellate Division that petitioner's submissions does not demonstrate
SNIPPETS:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Petitioner, a correction officer with a 14-year record of service, was terminated from his
The dispute culminated in the filing of disciplinary charges against petitioner, and the
Having been represented by an attorney provided by his union, petitioner was ultimately found
Petitioner subsequently brought the present proceeding to vacate the arbitration award,
On respondent's appeal, however, the Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the award.
We agree with the Appellate Division that petitioner's submissions does not demonstrate a
Petitioner's contention that the award is violative of public policy (see, e.g., Matter of
The retaliatory motive of petitioner's prosecutors was a factual matter that bore directly on
Petitioner's alternative argument based on CPLR 7511, which provides for vacatur in the event
The "corruption, fraud or misconduct" to which petitioner refers is the union attorney's
Thus, even assuming that petitioner had a viable fair-representation claim under New York
The flaw in the dissent's position is that it assumes, without benefit of a hearing or
It is fair to say that the program petitioner was charged with administering was an attempt
Particularly significant is the following finding by the District Court Judge:
testimony was remarkable in several respects.
Petitioner relates that shortly after his testimony in the Federal class action, he was
Despite the pattern of hostility exhibited toward petitioner, which arguably intensified
Service Bar Assn, Local 237, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v City of NY, 64 NY2d 188, 196).
While the Majority points out that whether the charges against petitioner were trumped up in
Judge Ciparick dissents and votes to reverse in an opinion in which Judge Smith concurs.
|
