Bramall v. Prokosch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bramall v. Prokosch

251 A.D.2d 572, 673 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7516

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

DecidedJune 22, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 572 (Bramall v. Prokosch) 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

Bramall v. Prokosch, 251 A.D.2d 572, 673 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated May 28, 1997, which denied his motion to vacate the award and granted the respondents’ cross motion to confirm the award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The sole ground the petitioner raises for setting aside the arbitration award is that it was totally irrational. However, we find that the award was not totally irrational (see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299; Johnston v Johnston, 161 AD2d 125).

In light of this determination we need not reach the respondents’ remaining contention. Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated May 28, 1997, which denied his motion to vacate the award and granted the respondents’ cross motion to confirm the award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The sole ground the petitioner raises for setting aside the arbitration award is that it was totally irrational. However, we find that the award was not totally irrational (see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299; Johnston v Johnston, 161 AD2d 125).

In light of this determination we need not reach the respondents’ remaining contention. Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 572, 673 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bramall-v-prokosch-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack