Bevona v. Supervised Cleaning & Maintenance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bevona v. Supervised Cleaning & Maintenance Co.

160 A.D.2d 605, 554 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4649

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

DecidedApril 24, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 160 A.D.2d 605 (Bevona v. Supervised Cleaning & Maintenance 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. Supervised Cleaning & Maintenance Co., 160 A.D.2d 605, 554 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered February 2, 1989, which, inter alia, granted respondent’s motion to vacate a prior judgment of said court entered January 7, 1988 and remanded the matter to the arbitrator for a hearing de novo, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In accordance with the collective bargaining agreement, petitioner obtained an arbitration award on behalf of a union member whose weekly work hours had been reduced by her employer without the prior written consent of petitioner as required by such agreement. After the court’s initial confirmation, on default, of the $12,402.58 award to the union member for lost wages, it was learned that the member had failed to disclose to the arbitrator that she had been simultaneously employed by another employer during hours when she purportedly represented to the arbitrator that she worked only for respondent. Since the member’s employment hours were a critical issue in the arbitration, respondent moved to vacate the previously entered judgment and arbitration award on the ground that such concealment adversely affected the net damages due.

[606]*606Although discovery of new evidence is generally not a ground for vacatur of an arbitration award (Matter of Central Gen. Hosp. v Hanover Ins. Co., 49 NY2d 950; Levine v Klein, 70 AD2d 532), it was proper, under these circumstances, for the motion court to grant respondent’s motion and vacate the award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (i), which cites the grounds of "corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring the award”. (Matter of Science Dev. Corp. [Schonberger], 156 AD2d 253; Matter of Kalgren [Central Mut. Ins. Co.], 68 AD2d 549.) As noted by the motion court, the evidence, if credited, "would probably have produced a different result at the arbitration hearing as to the net damages due.” Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Ellerin, Wallach 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 (Stanley Parness, J.), entered February 2, 1989, which, inter alia, granted respondent’s motion to vacate a prior judgment of said court entered January 7, 1988 and remanded the matter to the arbitrator for a hearing de novo, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In accordance with the collective bargaining agreement, petitioner obtained an arbitration award on behalf of a union member whose weekly work hours had been reduced by her employer without the prior written consent of petitioner as required by such agreement. After the court’s initial confirmation, on default, of the $12,402.58 award to the union member for lost wages, it was learned that the member had failed to disclose to the arbitrator that she had been simultaneously employed by another employer during hours when she purportedly represented to the arbitrator that she worked only for respondent. Since the member’s employment hours were a critical issue in the arbitration, respondent moved to vacate the previously entered judgment and arbitration award on the ground that such concealment adversely affected the net damages due.

[606]*606Although discovery of new evidence is generally not a ground for vacatur of an arbitration award (Matter of Central Gen. Hosp. v Hanover Ins. Co., 49 NY2d 950; Levine v Klein, 70 AD2d 532), it was proper, under these circumstances, for the motion court to grant respondent’s motion and vacate the award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (i), which cites the grounds of "corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring the award”. (Matter of Science Dev. Corp. [Schonberger], 156 AD2d 253; Matter of Kalgren [Central Mut. Ins. Co.], 68 AD2d 549.) As noted by the motion court, the evidence, if credited, "would probably have produced a different result at the arbitration hearing as to the net damages due.” Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 605, 554 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bevona-v-supervised-cleaning-maintenance-co-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack