Case Name: In the Matter of Phil Caruso, as President of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. Malcolm D. MacDonald, as Chairman of the Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1991-01-29
Citations: 169 A.D.2d 644
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Phil Caruso, as President of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Malcolm D. MacDonald, as Chairman of the Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 169
Pages: 644–644

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Phil Caruso, as President of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Malcolm D. MacDonald, as Chairman of the Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Opinion:
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered October 30, 1989, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging a decision of the respondent Board of Collective Bargaining dated March 30, 1989, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Due to a scheduling conflict, a number of Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA) members who had intended to take a promotional examination at 8:30 a.m. were required to take it at 10:30 a.m., allegedly losing two hours of swing time between shifts. On behalf of these officers, the PBA seeks to arbitrate a grievance for overtime, which may be obtained pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement only where work is ordered or authorized by the Police Department. Because there is a rational basis for the Collective Bargaining Board's conclusion that the two hours spent sitting for the examination were not ordered and/or authorized by the Police Department, and because it is appropriate to defer to the expertise of the Collective Bargaining Board, petitioners' article 78 proceeding was properly dismissed. (Matter of Caruso v Anderson, 138 Misc 2d 719, 720, affd 145 AD2d 1004, lv denied 73 NY2d 709.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.