Adelstein v. Thomas J. Manzo, Inc.

61 A.D.2d 933, 402 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10525
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 21, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 61 A.D.2d 933 (Adelstein v. Thomas J. Manzo, Inc.) 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
Adelstein v. Thomas J. Manzo, Inc., 61 A.D.2d 933, 402 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 9, 1977, which granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitrator’s award to the extent of modifying that award to provide that the weekly pay figure of $239 should be used to calculate back pay instead of the $259 figure found by the arbitrator and which denied respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously reversed, on the law, and vacated, without costs or disbursements, and the petition to confirm dismissed, the cross motion to vacate granted and the matter remanded to the arbitrator to make a final award of back pay. After determining the issues submitted, the arbitrator retained jurisdiction solely to fix the amount of back pay due the employee, after giving credit to the employer for earnings from other employment and unemployment insurance payments, in the event the parties could not agree. Though there may well be no real issue on this subject, it is manifest that the parties are not in agreement and the matter therefore must go back to the arbitrator to determine the amount of back pay due. Consequently, and by its own terms, whereby the arbitrator retained jurisdiction to determine such dispute, the award is not a final determination, but only interlocutory. (CPLR 7511, subd [b], par 1, cl [iii].) In the absence of a final award, there is no authority for judicial intervention and the petition for confirmation must be dismissed. (Cf. Mobil Oil Indonesia v Asamera Oil, 43 NY2d 276.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Lane, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Moby Richard Holdings, LLC v. Ramo
2025 NY Slip Op 01428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
American Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Allied Capital Corp.
2018 NY Slip Op 7194 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Geneva City School District v. Anonymous
77 A.D.3d 1365 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Marracino v. Alexander
73 A.D.3d 22 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Jett v. Kidder Peabody & Co.
176 Misc. 2d 280 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
Snyder-Plax v. American Arbitration Ass'n
196 A.D.2d 872 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 A.D.2d 933, 402 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adelstein-v-thomas-j-manzo-inc-nyappdiv-1978.