Apollo Reproductions v. West 35th Street Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Apollo Reproductions v. West 35th Street Associates

186 A.D.2d 52, 587 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10580

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

DecidedSeptember 17, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 52 (Apollo Reproductions v. West 35th Street Associates) 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

Apollo Reproductions v. West 35th Street Associates, 186 A.D.2d 52, 587 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered August 16, 1991, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award, denied plaintiff’s cross-motion to confirm the award, and remanded the matter for a new hearing, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly concluded that defendant’s counsel was entitled to notice from the arbitrator of the scheduled arbitration hearing. An arbitrator is obliged to send notice of an arbitration hearing to an attorney designated as representing one of the parties (CPLR 7506 [b], [d]; Matter of New York Tel. Co. [Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co.], 87 AD2d 956, 957). There being no dispute that defendant’s counsel was never notified of the arbitration although the arbitrator had been informed of counsel’s retention and specifically requested such notice, it is clear that defendant was prejudiced by a "failure to follow the procedure of [CPLR article 75]”, and that grounds therefore exist for vacating the award and remanding the matter for a new hearing (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iv]). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered August 16, 1991, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award, denied plaintiff’s cross-motion to confirm the award, and remanded the matter for a new hearing, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly concluded that defendant’s counsel was entitled to notice from the arbitrator of the scheduled arbitration hearing. An arbitrator is obliged to send notice of an arbitration hearing to an attorney designated as representing one of the parties (CPLR 7506 [b], [d]; Matter of New York Tel. Co. [Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co.], 87 AD2d 956, 957). There being no dispute that defendant’s counsel was never notified of the arbitration although the arbitrator had been informed of counsel’s retention and specifically requested such notice, it is clear that defendant was prejudiced by a "failure to follow the procedure of [CPLR article 75]”, and that grounds therefore exist for vacating the award and remanding the matter for a new hearing (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iv]). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 52, 587 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/apollo-reproductions-v-west-35th-street-associates-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack