Back to feedAnalyzed Oct 3, 2026 View on CourtListener
Appeal deniedCivilCourt of AppealsAppeal
Matter of Cheektowaga-Sloan Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Ostempowski
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Decided
- Oct 2, 2026
- Docket
- MOTION NO. (435/26) CA 25-01410.
- Judges
- Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05704
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary
AI breakdown
Where this case stands
The opinion doesn't say what the decided.
This decision · Appeal
Appeal denied
TL;DR
- 1A school district wanted to appeal an arbitration decision they disagreed with.
- 2The court decided not to allow the appeal to the Court of Appeals.
- 3The decision was based on procedural rules limiting appeals from arbitration.
Key issues
- 1
Should the school district be allowed to appeal the arbitration decision to the Court of Appeals?
Holding · The court denied the motion to allow an appeal, emphasizing the limitations on appealing arbitration outcomes.
Why it matters
This impacts how far parties can take disputes beyond arbitration, affecting the finality of arbitrators’ decisions.
If you were the judge?
School district disputes arbitration result. Can they appeal?
- 1A school district is unhappy with an arbitration decision.
- 2They want a higher court to review the arbitration outcome.
- 3The case's next step depends on whether an appeal is allowed.
Should the school district be allowed to appeal the arbitration decision?
Parties
Appellant
Matter of Cheektowaga-Sloan Union Free Sch. Dist.
Appellee
Ostempowski
Roles are inferred from the case caption.
Opinion of the court
Matter of Cheektowaga-Sloan Union Free Sch. Dist. v Ostempowski
2026 NY Slip Op 05704
October 2, 2026
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN CHEEKTOWAGA-SLOAN UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v
MARK OSTEMPOWSKI, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
Decided on October 2, 2026
MOTION NO. (435/26) CA 25-01410.
Present: Whalen, P.J., Bannister, Greenwood, Nowak, And Hannah, JJ. (Filed Oct. 2, 2026.)
[*1]
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.