Summary
recognizing retroactive effect of a successor agreement going back to the expiration date of the predecessor contract
Summary of this case from Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLCOpinion
December 1, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to PERB and the intervenor-respondent.
The record reveals that on September 6, 1984, the Association filed an improper practice charge with PERB against Suffolk County, alleging that the county failed to continue to pay step increments pursuant to an expired collective bargaining agreement. However, subsequent to the filing, the Association and Suffolk County entered into a successor agreement which was retroactive to the expiration date of the predecessor contract and which did not provide for a step advancement during the first year of the new agreement. Following PERB's dismissal of the improper practice charge, the Association commenced the instant proceeding to review the determination of PERB, and the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dismissed the proceeding as academic. We now affirm.
The retroactive effect of the successor agreement and the Association's insistence that it does not seek to alter the terms of that agreement render the issues raised on this appeal moot, for a determination of the appeal would not directly affect the rights of the parties (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707; Toscano v. Van Lindt, 112 A.D.2d 364). Moreover, this case presents narrow issues which do not warrant an exception to the mootness doctrine, nor does the record demonstrate a strong likelihood of a repetition of the instant controversy in the near future (see, e.g., Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, supra; Matter of Cortez v. Wilmot, 115 A.D.2d 140). Accordingly, we conclude that the court of first instance properly determined that the instant proceeding is academic. Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.