Abreu v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

87 A.D.2d 572, 447 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15823
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 1, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 87 A.D.2d 572 (Abreu v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance) 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
Abreu v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance, 87 A.D.2d 572, 447 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

Appeal by Luis Abreu from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.), dated September 25, 1979, which denied his motion for leave to reargue his application to confirm an arbitration award. (We deem the motion to have been one for renewal of the prior application.) Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion for leave to renew granted, and upon renewal, order dated June 4, 1979 denying Abreu’s application to confirm vacated, and application granted. Special Term erred in refusing to set aside the prior order, denying Abreu’s application to confirm the arbitration award on the ground the award was not duly acknowledged by the arbitrator. The record reveals that included in the papers submitted by Abreu on the motion for renewal was the subject award containing the required acknowledgment obtained by Abreu a short time after the application to confirm the award was denied. “Correction of the award by supplying the omitted acknowledgment after the award was signed [is] within the discretion of the court, [is] required to effect the intent of the award and to promote justice between the parties, and [does] not affect a substantial right of any party on the merits of the controversy” (cf. Matter of Verly Bldg. Corp. [Gertner], 264 App Div 885, 886). The addition of the acknowledgment to the award was a ministerial act which not only did not invalidate the award, but was necessary in order for it to be enforced (cf. Matter of Flotill Prods. [Buitoni Foods Corp.], 14 AD2d 328). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur

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

Related

Matter of Mirzakandov v. Mazal U Bracha, LLC
2023 NY Slip Op 02663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
MBNA v. Anastasio
35 A.D.3d 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Gillis v. Toll Land XIII Limited Partnership
309 A.D.2d 734 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Alava v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
183 A.D.2d 713 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 A.D.2d 572, 447 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abreu-v-nationwide-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1982.