'SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PART 0109481/2003 RABY, LILLIAN NDEX NO. vs OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE VlOTlON DATE I JlOTlON SEQ. NO. 06 I SEQ 1 ARTICLE 78 AOTION CAL. NO. The following papers, numbered 1 to were read on this motion to/for I PAPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause - I Affidavits - Exhibits ... -NIED Answering Affidavits - Exhibits I T 02003 Replying Affidavits i Cross-Motion: 0 Yes $(No Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion 0 t- IS n a W a W LL W a >. 4 3 LL o I- e W v) W pc v) I W v a ) o \ 2 0 F 0 z Dated: $d3 1 Check one: FINAL DISPOSITION NON-FINAL D
At IAS Part 9 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of New York, at the Courthouse thereof, 7 1 Thomas Street, New York, New York on the 12&o f September, 2003. PRESENT: HON. HAROLD B. BEELER, Justice Application of LILLIAN RABY, Petitioner, INDEX NUMBER 109481 /03 For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 MOTION SEQUENCE 001 DECISION & JUDGMENT -against- OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, BOARD OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, Respondents, Petitioner moves to reverse respondents’ determination denying and dismissing her improper practice petition against her union, Local 1180 Communications Workers of America (“CWA”), on the grounds it was untimely. Respondents do not oppose. Petitioner was employed in New York City civil service positions for 25 years retiring in 2000 from the Human Resources Administration (“HRA”). The Board of Collective Bargaining (“the Board”) is a part of the Office of Collective Bargaining, a public agency charged with hearing improper practice claims filed against employers or unions. On August 26,2002 petitioner filed an improper practice petition with respondents regarding a series of grievances with HRA management from September 4, 1997 to May 4,2000. She claimed CWA “neglected” and “ignored” her defense and right of representation in these matters. 1
I) The Board denied he n on April 22,2003 as untimelyelC WA had argued that petitioner’s last grievance was May 2000 and the statute of subsequently telephoned and wrote CWA representatives On May 23,2003, the instant petition was served requesting reversal of respondents’ determination. Petitioner argues that the determination was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion because it ignored her communications to the union as reckntly as a letter to the president in June 2002 which would have made her August 26,2002 CWA filed 11 grievances in petitioner’s behalf from July 199’7 to May 2000. Most were resolved, not always in her favor. Some the union dropped for cause, Petitioner wanted to press on. CWA in an affidavit to the Board disputed her claims that she gdt no response to her calls and letters. When, for instance, she was asked by letter to call the instead wrote to the president complaining of being ignored. NYC Collective B section may be filed Respondents were not arbitrary and capricious in finding petitioner untimely in filing her improper practice petition. Petitioner did not have to take with CWA, but the Court cannot offer her relief when she chose attention of CWA leadership instead of exercising her legal rights pursuant to NYCCBL 306(e) or even responding to CWA’s communications. Accordingly the petition to reverse respondents’ 2 limitatiods was not tolled when she complainidg about union support. , I lpetition timely. I union representative, she 1 1 er p’ractice or of the date “No” for dn answer in her dealings to spend years trying to get the 0 12- determinatioh denying and dismissing
petitioner's improper practice petition against her union is denied. This is the decision and judgment of the Court. DATE: September 12,2003 ENTER: HAROLD B. BEELER, J.S.C. 3
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.