Bevona v. Emsof Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bevona v. Emsof Realty Co.

160 A.D.2d 463, 554 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4259

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

DecidedApril 17, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 A.D.2d 463 (Bevona v. Emsof Realty Co.) 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

Bevona v. Emsof Realty Co., 160 A.D.2d 463, 554 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered July 24, 1989, which granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award and awarded petitioner, on account of an aggrieved employee, $24,860.69, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The subject arbitration concerned justifiable cause for the dismissal of an employee in September 1985. The employee was reinstated in October 1986 after respondent employer declared it was not ready to proceed and requested an adjournment, with the matter being adjourned peremptorily against it. Although the employer was sent notice of the time and place of the final hearing date, it failed to appear and the subject arbitration award was rendered.

Respondent employer now contends that after the adjourned date, its representation was undertaken by an attorney, who was not then notified of the time and place of the final hearing date as would be the arbitrator’s duty under CPLR 7506 (b), (d). This failure, it is argued, constitutes grounds for vacating the arbitration award as a "failure to follow the procedure” of CPLR article 75. (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iv].) We reject such claim as the record fails to indicate that the arbitrator was ever informed in any manner of the commencement of the purported representation by the attorney. We note that respondent employer clearly was not so represented through 1986 and was notified of the final hearing date and failed to have any representative present. We have examined appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered July 24, 1989, which granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award and awarded petitioner, on account of an aggrieved employee, $24,860.69, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The subject arbitration concerned justifiable cause for the dismissal of an employee in September 1985. The employee was reinstated in October 1986 after respondent employer declared it was not ready to proceed and requested an adjournment, with the matter being adjourned peremptorily against it. Although the employer was sent notice of the time and place of the final hearing date, it failed to appear and the subject arbitration award was rendered.

Respondent employer now contends that after the adjourned date, its representation was undertaken by an attorney, who was not then notified of the time and place of the final hearing date as would be the arbitrator’s duty under CPLR 7506 (b), (d). This failure, it is argued, constitutes grounds for vacating the arbitration award as a "failure to follow the procedure” of CPLR article 75. (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iv].) We reject such claim as the record fails to indicate that the arbitrator was ever informed in any manner of the commencement of the purported representation by the attorney. We note that respondent employer clearly was not so represented through 1986 and was notified of the final hearing date and failed to have any representative present. We have examined appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 463, 554 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bevona-v-emsof-realty-co-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack