Prendergast v. Kingston City School Dist.

• Decision Date: 04 September 1997
• Citation: 242 A.D.2d 773,662 N.Y.S.2d 141
• Parties: , 120 Ed. Law Rep. 1142, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 7321 In the Matter of Neil PRENDERGAST, Appellant, v. KINGSTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 141

662 N.Y.S.2d 141

242 A.D.2d 773, 120 Ed. Law Rep. 1142,

1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 7321

In the Matter of Neil PRENDERGAST, Appellant, v. KINGSTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Sept. 4, 1997.

Basso & Burke (William T. Burke, of counsel), Poughkeepsie, for appellant.

Plunkett & Jaffe, P.C. (Phyllis S. Jaffe, of counsel), White Plains, for respondents.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, WHITE, CASEY and SPAIN, JJ.

CASEY, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Carpinello, J.), entered May 17, 1996 in Ulster County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, granted respondents' motion to dismiss the petition for lack of capacity to sue.

Petitioner was injured during the course of his employment with respondent Kingston City School District (hereinafter the District) and was subsequently terminated from service by reason of disability after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. Thereafter, petitioner filed a grievance alleging that respondents had denied him certain benefits to which he was entitled under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the District and petitioner's union. The grievance was denied after an informal hearing and neither petitioner nor his union pursued the formal steps of the contractual grievance procedure.

In October 1995, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to compel respondents to provide him with the requested benefits. Respondents, in turn, moved to dismiss the petition on the ground, inter alia, that petitioner lacked capacity to maintain the proceeding. Petitioner cross-moved for leave to amend the petition to add his union as a petitioner in the proceeding and a cause of action compelling respondents to submit the dispute to arbitration. Supreme Court, inter alia, granted respondents' motion and this appeal by petitioner ensued.

We affirm. The petition seeks recovery based upon the District's alleged breach of the collective bargaining agreement. It is well settled that "[a]bsent a breach of the duty of fair representation by the union * * * an individual may not bring suit to enforce the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement" (Matter of Biegel v. Board of Educ. of Ellenville Cent. School Dist., 211 A.D.2d 969, 971, 621 N.Y.S.2d 709; see, Matter of Board of Educ. Commack Union Free School Dist. v. Ambach, 70 N.Y.2d 501, 508, 522 N.Y.S.2d 831, 517 N.E.2d 509, cert denied Margolin v. Board of Educ., 485 U.S. 1034, 108 S.Ct. 1593, 99 L.Ed.2d 908). Since petitioner has not alleged that his union breached the duty of fair representation, we agree with Supreme Court that petitioner lacks the capacity to bring the instant proceeding against respondents (see, Clark v. County of Cayuga, 212 A.D.2d 963, 623 N.Y.S.2d 57; Goosley v. Binghamton City School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 101 A.D.2d 942, 942-943, 475 N.Y.S.2d 924).

Likewise, we find no abuse of discretion in Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's cross motion for leave to amend the petition. Generally, leave to amend pleadings pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) is freely granted (see, Amica Mut. Ins. Co....