2400 East 3rd Owners Corp. v. Local No. 670, RWDSU

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

2400 East 3rd Owners Corp. v. Local No. 670, RWDSU

37 A.D.3d 612, 828 N.Y.S.2d 821

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 13, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 612 (2400 East 3rd Owners Corp. v. Local No. 670, RWDSU) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

2400 East 3rd Owners Corp. v. Local No. 670, RWDSU, 37 A.D.3d 612, 828 N.Y.S.2d 821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated April 11, 2006, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner was “duly notified to appear” at the September 19, 2005, hearing, and, notwithstanding its failure to appear at that hearing, the arbitrator was empowered to “hear and determine the controversy upon the evidence produced” (CPLR 7506 [c]). Further, none of the grounds for vacating an arbitration award apply herein (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1]). Accordingly, [613]*613the Supreme Court properly denied the petition. Rivera, J.E, Santucci, Skelos and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated April 11, 2006, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner was “duly notified to appear” at the September 19, 2005, hearing, and, notwithstanding its failure to appear at that hearing, the arbitrator was empowered to “hear and determine the controversy upon the evidence produced” (CPLR 7506 [c]). Further, none of the grounds for vacating an arbitration award apply herein (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1]). Accordingly, [613]*613the Supreme Court properly denied the petition. Rivera, J.E, Santucci, Skelos and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 612, 828 N.Y.S.2d 821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/2400-east-3rd-owners-corp-v-local-no-670-rwdsu-nyappdiv-2007.