In this proceeding arising from a dispute among labor unions, petitioner, Laborers' Local Union 1010, Highway, Road, Street Construction Pavers & Roadbuilders District Council, Liuna, AFL-CIO, moves under CPLR 7503 (b) to stay an arbitration commenced by respondent, Stone Derrickmen & Riggers Local Union No. 197, IABSORIW. The motion is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

CPLR 7503 (b) provides that a party that has not participated in the arbitration (nor been served with a motion to compel arbitration) may "may apply to stay arbitration on the ground [*2]that a valid agreement was not made or has not been complied with." It is undisputed that petitioner has not (yet) participated in the arbitration, that respondent has not moved to compel arbitration, and that the arbitration agreement on which respondent relies is valid. The question is instead whether respondent has complied with the terms of that arbitration agreement.

Petitioner's primary argument is that respondent has not complied with the terms of the arbitration agreement. According to petitioner, respondent did not satisfy a condition precedent to arbitration—namely participating in a mediation conducted in compliance with the New York Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, entered into by New York-area building and construction unions. (See NYSCEF No. 3 at ¶¶ 7-16 [petitioner's attorney affirmation].) In particular, petitioner says, the New York Plan provides that in the circumstances presented here, the mediation must be jointly conducted by the director of labor relations for the General Contractors Association (GCA) and by the president of the Building & Construction Trades Council of Greater New York (Trades Council). (See id. at ¶¶ 8-11, citing NYSCEF No. 5 at art V, § 2 [d] [New York Plan].) It is undisputed that the mediation that occurred in this case was conducted only by the president of the Trades Council. (See NYSCEF No. 3 at ¶ 12; NYSCEF No. 12 at ¶ 5 [respondent's attorney affirmation].) Therefore, petitioner argues, that mediation was insufficient and cannot satisfy the arbitration agreement's condition precedent to arbitration.

The difficulty for this argument is that, as respondent points out (see NYSCEF No. 12 at ¶ 18), the New York Plan expressly provides at the outset that "unless executed by the GCA, all GCA references will be inapplicable." (NYSCEF No. 5 at 2 [emphasis added].) The copy of the New York Plan submitted by petitioner on this motion does not include a signature page executed by the GCA. (Cf. id. at 15 [signature page executed by the Trades Council's president].) Petitioner does not represent that the GCA later executed the New York Plan. Nor has petitioner disputed respondent's representation that "the GCA has never executed or become signatory to the NY Plan." (NYSCEF No. 12 at ¶ 19.) Absent execution by the GCA, the New York Plan's provision about participation in mediation by a GCA representative is not in effect. On this record, therefore, petitioner has not established that the mediation at issue here was rendered invalid by having been conducted only by the president of the Trades Council.

Petitioner also challenges the sufficiency of respondent's notice of arbitration, contending that it lacked details and specificity required by the New York Plan.^[FN1] (See NYSCEF No. 3 at ¶¶ 17-20, citing NYSCEF No. 5 at art V, § 3 [a].) But petitioner provides no authority for the proposition that the level of detail it seeks is required by the New York Plan. Nor does petitioner cite caselaw holding that a deficiency of this sort warrants a stay of arbitration. The sole decision cited by petitioner is inapposite. (See NYSCEF No. 3 at ¶ 21, citing Matter of Board of Educ. of Palmyra-Macedon Cent. School Dist. v Palmyra-Macedon Faculty Assn., 78 AD2d 765 [4th Dept 1980].) Matter of Palmyra-Macedon holds only that a stay is properly granted when the notice is so vague that "the court is not able to rule on the threshold issues of arbitrability" of the underlying dispute. (78 AD2d at 766 [emphasis added].) In this case, on the other hand, the [*3]arbitrability of the dispute is uncontested. Petitioner's objection goes instead, at most, to the conduct of the arbitration itself once commenced—not whether the court should permit arbitration to commence.

Petitioner has not established that respondent failed to comply with a valid and applicable arbitration agreement for purposes of CPLR 7503 (b).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that petitioner's motion is denied, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding is dismissed, with costs and disbursements to respondent as taxed by the Clerk upon the submission of an appropriate bill of costs; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry on petitioner and on the office of the County Clerk (using the NYSCEF document type "Notice to the County Clerk - CPLR § 8019 (c)"), which shall enter judgment accordingly.