Summary
The court held that the plaintiffs were not required to exhaust the collective bargaining agreement's grievance procedure because retirement benefits were expressly excluded from the agreement's definition of a grievance. It also held that the defendants were collaterally estopped from relitigating the association's standing, the sufficiency of the complaint, and the complete statute-of-limitations defense. However, claims by individual plaintiffs for breaches accruing more than six years before the action commenced were time-barred under CPLR 213(2).
Holdings
- The plaintiffs were not required to exhaust the grievance procedure because the agreement expressly excluded matters involving retirement benefits from the definition of a grievance.
- Defendants were collaterally estopped from relitigating whether the WCCOBA lacked standing and whether the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
- Defendants were collaterally estopped from relitigating whether the individual plaintiffs' claims were entirely barred by the six-year limitations period.
- Claims by the individual plaintiffs accruing more than six years before commencement of the action were time-barred and had to be dismissed.
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiffs were required to exhaust the collective bargaining agreement's grievance procedure before pursuing claims concerning retirement benefits.
- Whether defendants were collaterally estopped from relitigating the WCCOBA's standing and whether the complaint stated a cause of action.
- Whether defendants were collaterally estopped from asserting that the claims by the individual plaintiffs were entirely barred by the six-year statute of limitations.
- Whether claims by the individual plaintiffs accruing more than six years before commencement of the action were time-barred.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (10)
- Franklin Dev. Co., Inc. v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 60 A.D.3d 897 (2009)(followed)
- Luscher v. Arrua, 21 A.D.3d 1005 (2005)(followed)
- D'Arata v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 N.Y.2d 659, 664 (1990)(followed)
- Kaufman v. Eli Lilly & Co., 65 N.Y.2d 449, 455 (1985)(followed)
- CSEA Empl. Benefit Fund v. Warwick Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., 36 A.D.3d 582, 584 (2007)(followed)
- Matter of Prote Contr. Co. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 198 A.D.2d 418, 420 (1993)(followed)
- Matter of DeCintio v. Cohalan, 18 A.D.3d 872, 873 (2005)(followed)
- Matter of Condo Units v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 4 A.D.3d 424, 425 (2004)(followed)
- State of New York v. CSRI Ltd. P'ship, 289 A.D.2d 394, 395 (2001)(followed)
- Scheg v. Agway, Inc., 229 A.D.2d 963 (1996)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…