Court Opinion

ID: 9929969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 20:07:40.444237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:01:54.173648
License: Public Domain

Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Port Auth. Sergeants
                    Benevolent Assn.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30348(U)
                    January 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 453311/2023
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 453311/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          453311/2023
             PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         01/25/2024
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
             PORT AUTHORITY SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             ASSOCIATION, JOHN PASSAROTTI
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
            were read on this motion to/for                                      CONFIRM/DISAPPROVE AWARD/REPORT                   .

                      The petition to confirm an arbitral award is denied due to improper service.

            Background

                      This proceeding arises out of arbitration involving misconduct committed by respondent

            John Passarotti, a sergeant for the Port Authority. After a lengthy arbitration, an arbitrator found

            that Mr. Passarotti intentionally concealed license plates affixed to Port Authority owned

            vehicles and directed officers under his immediate supervisions to remove license plates from

            other vehicles in order to conceal their identifying information. The apparent purpose was to

            avoid incurring summonses for running red lights. The arbitrator imposed a penalty of

            termination.

                      Respondents did not interpose an answer in this case. Instead, it first uploaded an

            affirmation from Mr. Robert Zafonte, Jr., president of respondent Port Authority Sergeants

            Benevolent Association, in which he denies that this respondent received service. He claims that

            the person purportedly served was a lieutenant, which shows service was not properly
             453311/2023 PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY vs. PORT AUTHORITY                                  Page 1 of 4
             SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                                INDEX NO. 453311/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            effectuated as that person is not affiliated with the Port Authority Sergeants Benevolent

            Association (“SBA”). In his affirmation Mr. Zafonte, Jr. requests that the January 25, 2024

            return date be “postponed” indefinitely. He also observes that he was told by the general counsel

            for the SBA that there is “some type of proceeding” in this dispute scheduled for April 2024.

            Respondents included an affirmation from its counsel, who also observes that petitioner did not

            serve respondent Passarotti.

                      In reply, petitioner contends that its agent for service of process attempted service on two

            separate dates and, on the second attempt, was “met with surprising conduct.” Petitioner points

            to an affirmation from the process server, NYSCEF Doc. No. 16, in which he claims that the

            lieutenant to which he gave the papers agreed to accept service on behalf of the SBA. Petitioner

            insists that respondents are evading service and that the Court should exercise its discretion

            under CPLR 311(b).

            Discussion

                      The procedural posture of the instant dispute is baffling. Respondents claim that there

            was improper service but did not make a motion to dismiss for improper service or file an answer

            and raise improper service as a defense. Instead, they uploaded an affirmation and asked for an

            adjournment,1 although it is unclear on what basis this special proceeding should be adjourned.

            Moreover, the vague reference to “some type of proceeding” in April 2024 is not a basis to

            adjourn a fully submitted petition.

                      Petitioner’s reply is not without its own curious arguments. As an initial matter, the date

            of purported service is January 15, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 12) despite the fact that the notice

            1
              Respondents also attempted to contact the Court via telephone and requested “guidance.” The Court ignored these
            requests as it cannot offer legal advice or guidance to parties nor will it engage in ex parte communications about
            how one side should proceed.
                453311/2023 PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY vs. PORT AUTHORITY                          Page 2 of 4
                SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION ET AL
                Motion No. 001

                                                                 2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 453311/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            of petition set the return date for January 25, 2024 and required an answer to be filed seven days

            prior to return date. That is, petitioner did not timely serve the commencing papers under CPLR

            403(b) (which requires that service be effectuated 12 days before the return date where the notice

            of petition demands an answer seven days prior to the return date) and did not make a motion to

            extend its time to serve respondents.

                   Moreover, petitioner does not directly refute respondents’ central argument that petitioner

            did not properly serve the Sergeants Benevolent Association because it attempted to effectuate

            service by handing the papers to a lieutenant. On its face, that raises an issue about the

            effectiveness of the purported service. And petitioner did not make a motion to address this issue

            despite including a vague reference in reply to CPLR 311(b), which provides that a Court “upon

            motion without notice” may direct service via alternative means on a domestic or foreign

            corporation where service under CPLR 311(a) is “impracticable.” The Court cannot grant such

            relief where it was requested for the first time in reply.

                   In any event, the Court denies the petition and dismisses this case for lack of service

            because petitioner never served respondent Passarotti. Respondents pointed out that there was

            no service on this respondent (NYSCEF Doc. No. 14, ¶ 8) and petitioner did not address this

            issue in reply. “A special proceeding relating to arbitration generally is not effectively

            commenced if the initiating papers are served by ordinary mail. Service must be made in the

            same manner as a summons” (Vincent C. Alexander, Supplementary Prac Commentaries,

            C7502:1).

                   Here, the affidavit of service (which, as noted above, is disputed) only purports to show

            service on the SBA (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 12). No mention is made in the affidavit of service

            that respondent Passarotti was served nor did petitioner explain why it did not need to serve this

             453311/2023 PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY vs. PORT AUTHORITY                 Page 3 of 4
             SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 453311/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            respondent. As he is clearly a necessary party (after all, the arbitrator terminated his

            employment), the Court is unable to grant the petition and therefore, there is no reason to assess

            whether or not the SBA was properly served.

                    The Court also cannot vacate the award as respondents insist this Court has not gained

            jurisdiction over either respondent. The Court merely dismisses this petition on procedural

            grounds based on improper service and makes no affirmative findings on the merits of the

            arbitration award.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ADJUDGED that the petition is denied for lack of proper service without costs or

            disbursements.

                    1/29/2024                                                           $SIG$
                      DATE                                                      ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:               X   CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                  □
                                          GRANTED          X   DENIED    GRANTED IN PART               OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                  □
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN     FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT         REFERENCE

             453311/2023 PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY vs. PORT AUTHORITY                Page 4 of 4
             SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION ET AL
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]