Case Name: In the Matter of Edward Morris, Individually and on Behalf of All Deputy Sheriffs Employed by the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, Respondent, v. County of Suffolk et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 1.); County of Suffolk, Appellant, v. Vincent Cannatella, Individually and as President of the Association of Deputy Sheriffs and Corrections Officers (A.D.S.C.O.), et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1984-12-10
Citations: 106 A.D.2d 446
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Edward Morris, Individually and on Behalf of All Deputy Sheriffs Employed by the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, Respondent, v County of Suffolk et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 1.) County of Suffolk, Appellant, v Vincent Cannatella, Individually and as President of the Association of Deputy Sheriffs and Corrections Officers (A.D.S.C.O.), et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 446–447

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Edward Morris, Individually and on Behalf of All Deputy Sheriffs Employed by the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, Respondent, v County of Suffolk et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 1.) County of Suffolk, Appellant, v Vincent Cannatella, Individually and as President of the Association of Deputy Sheriffs and Corrections Officers (A.D.S.C.O.), et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Opinion:
—In consolidated proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 75 in which, inter alia, the appellant County of Suffolk sought to vacate an arbitrator's award and Edward Morris applied on his own behalf and on behalf of all deputy sheriffs employed by the county to confirm said award, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered February 8, 1984, which confirmed the award.
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The arbitrator's award cannot fairly be said to have been totally irrational. Rather the arbitrator interpreted the disputed term of the contract in light of what he found to be the intent of the parties (Matter of Local Div. 1179 [Green Bus Lines], 50 NY2d 1007). The award also is not violative of public policy (see Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623). Thompson, J. P., O'Connor, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.