Opinion
November 20, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii), an arbitrator's award will not be vacated unless it is totally irrational, exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on his or her power, or is violative of a strong public policy (Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Employees Assn.], 70 N.Y.2d 907; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299). Upon a review of the record, we find no basis for vacatur (see, Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers [Board of Educ.], 135 A.D.2d 638; cf., Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn., 129 A.D.2d 708). Here, the arbitration was conducted pursuant to a broad arbitration clause in the parties' collective bargaining agreement, which empowered the arbitrator to resolve disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the agreement subject only to the limitation that the arbitrator could not modify the terms of the agreement (see, Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Employees Assn.], 70 N.Y.2d 907, supra; Matter of Town of Haverstraw [Rockland County Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn.], 65 N.Y.2d 677). In rendering the award, the arbitrator referred to specific provisions of the agreement with respect to teachers' salaries, and did not vary any of the terms. Moreover, although the arbitrator did consider past practices between the parties to interpret provisions of the agreement, this did not render her decision irrational (see, Matter of Board of Educ. [Hess], 49 N.Y.2d 145; Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn., 41 N.Y.2d 578; cf., Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn., 129 A.D.2d 708, supra). In addition, we agree with the Supreme Court that there was no indication that the award was in contravention of any strong public policy considerations (see, Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 N.Y.2d 623, 630). Mindful as we are of the limited circumstances which may lead to the vacatur of an arbitration award, we conclude that this award was properly confirmed. Brown, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.