Berman v. Congregation Beth Shalom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berman v. Congregation Beth Shalom

171 A.D.2d 637, 567 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3213

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 637 (Berman v. Congregation Beth Shalom) 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

Berman v. Congregation Beth Shalom, 171 A.D.2d 637, 567 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered September 5, 1989, which granted the petition and denied the cross application to vacate the award and rescind the arbitration agreement.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We disagree with the appellants’ contention that the arbitrator’s failure to make specific findings violated the terms of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. In any event, it is well established that an arbitrator’s failure to set forth his findings or reasoning does not constitute a basis to vacate an award (see, CPLR 7511 [b] [1]; Matter of Reddick & Sons v Carthage Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 91 AD2d 1182; Tilbury Fabrics v Stillwater, Inc., 81 AD2d 532, affd 56 NY2d 624; Matter of Colletti [Mesh], 23 AD2d 245, affd 17 NY2d 460). Nor is there any basis for this court to vacate the arbitrator’s award on the ground that it was excessive. As a matter of public policy the merits of an arbitration are beyond judicial review (see, CPLR 7511 [b] [1]; Integrated Sales v Maxell Corp., 94 AD2d 221, 224). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered September 5, 1989, which granted the petition and denied the cross application to vacate the award and rescind the arbitration agreement.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We disagree with the appellants’ contention that the arbitrator’s failure to make specific findings violated the terms of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. In any event, it is well established that an arbitrator’s failure to set forth his findings or reasoning does not constitute a basis to vacate an award (see, CPLR 7511 [b] [1]; Matter of Reddick & Sons v Carthage Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 91 AD2d 1182; Tilbury Fabrics v Stillwater, Inc., 81 AD2d 532, affd 56 NY2d 624; Matter of Colletti [Mesh], 23 AD2d 245, affd 17 NY2d 460). Nor is there any basis for this court to vacate the arbitrator’s award on the ground that it was excessive. As a matter of public policy the merits of an arbitration are beyond judicial review (see, CPLR 7511 [b] [1]; Integrated Sales v Maxell Corp., 94 AD2d 221, 224). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 637, 567 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berman-v-congregation-beth-shalom-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack