Bitzko v. Gamache

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bitzko v. Gamache

168 A.D.2d 888, 564 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15739

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 888 (Bitzko v. Gamache) 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

Bitzko v. Gamache, 168 A.D.2d 888, 564 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Beisner, J.), entered August 7, 1989 in Dutchess County, which denied defendants’ motion for, inter alia, an order holding a previous arbitration hearing null and void.

Defense counsel’s appearance at the arbitration hearing without his clients and his refusal to participate in the hearing constituted a default on the part of defendants (see, Finamore v Huntington Cardiac Rehabilitation Assn., 150 AD2d 426). Although 22 NYCRR 28.7 (a) provides for vacating an arbitration award where a party defaults upon a showing of "good cause”, the record herein fails to indicate any valid reason for the failure to proceed with arbitration. Accordingly, defendants failed to demonstrate "good cause” and the motion to vacate the default judgment was properly denied (see, Sassower v Higbee, 96 AD2d 588).

Order affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Beisner, J.), entered August 7, 1989 in Dutchess County, which denied defendants’ motion for, inter alia, an order holding a previous arbitration hearing null and void.

Defense counsel’s appearance at the arbitration hearing without his clients and his refusal to participate in the hearing constituted a default on the part of defendants (see, Finamore v Huntington Cardiac Rehabilitation Assn., 150 AD2d 426). Although 22 NYCRR 28.7 (a) provides for vacating an arbitration award where a party defaults upon a showing of "good cause”, the record herein fails to indicate any valid reason for the failure to proceed with arbitration. Accordingly, defendants failed to demonstrate "good cause” and the motion to vacate the default judgment was properly denied (see, Sassower v Higbee, 96 AD2d 588).

Order affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 888, 564 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bitzko-v-gamache-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack