Town of Saugerties v. Town of Saugerties Policeman's Benevolent Ass'n

• Decision Date: 26 January 2012
• Parties: In the Matter of the Arbitration between TOWN OF SAUGERTIES et al., Appellants,andTOWN OF SAUGERTIES POLICEMAN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00458
91 A.D.3d 1264
937 N.Y.S.2d 686

In the Matter of the Arbitration between TOWN OF SAUGERTIES et al., Appellants,andTOWN OF SAUGERTIES POLICEMAN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Jan. 26, 2012.

[937 N.Y.S.2d 686]

Roemer, Wallens, Gold & Mineaux, Albany (Earl T. Redding of counsel), for appellants.

Ennio J. Corsi, New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union, Albany (Christine Caputo Granich of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, J.P., ROSE, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.

[937 N.Y.S.2d 687]

ROSE, J.

[91 A.D.3d 1264] Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cahill, J.), entered April 4, 2011 in Ulster County, which, among other things, denied petitioners' application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration between the parties.

The parties' collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter CBA) contains a section entitled “Hours of Work and Overtime.” It states, among other things, that petitioner Town of Saugerties “agrees to comply with the requirements of Section 971 of the Unconsolidated Laws of New York.” That statute provides, in relevant part, that police officers shall not be assigned to tours of duty exceeding eight consecutive hours of each consecutive 24 hours, with certain exceptions. When respondent sought to arbitrate a grievance concerning an order that required an officer to work in excess of an eight-hour tour, petitioners commenced this proceeding to stay arbitration. Respondent then cross-moved to compel arbitration. Supreme Court granted respondent's cross motion and dismissed the petition, giving rise to this appeal.

Courts determine arbitrability according to a two-prong test—whether the parties may arbitrate the dispute and, if so, [91 A.D.3d 1265] whether they in fact agreed to do so ( see e.g. Matter of County of Chautauqua v. Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, County of Chautauqua Unit 6300, Chautauqua County Local 807, 8 N.Y.3d 513, 519, 838 N.Y.S.2d 1, 869 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). Petitioners claim that arbitration fails under both prongs here because, they argue, resolution of the dispute requires the application or interpretation of the terms of a statute. They contend that public policy will not permit an arbitrator to apply or interpret a statute and, as to the second prong, that the parties did not agree to arbitrate the application or interpretation of the statute at issue here. Neither of petitioners' arguments has...