Channel Textile Co. v. Adams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Channel Textile Co. v. Adams

161 A.D.2d 409

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

DecidedMay 15, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 161 A.D.2d 409 (Channel Textile Co. v. Adams) 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

Channel Textile Co. v. Adams, 161 A.D.2d 409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered on or about July 11, 1989, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondent Blake Adams, in opposition to petitioner’s motion, set forth no basis to vacate the award (CPLR 7511 [b]). The issue of standing raised by respondent was previously raised before the arbitrator and rejected. Accordingly, the court was statutorily mandated to confirm the award. (CPLR 7510; MVAIC v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 150 AD2d 215; Integrated Sales v Maxell Corp., 94 AD2d 221.)

As long as the arbitrators remain within their jurisdiction and do not reach an irrational result, they may "fashion the law to fit the facts before them” and their award will not be set aside because they erred in determination or application of the law. (Matter ofExercycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 NY2d 329, 336; Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Kassal 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 (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered on or about July 11, 1989, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondent Blake Adams, in opposition to petitioner’s motion, set forth no basis to vacate the award (CPLR 7511 [b]). The issue of standing raised by respondent was previously raised before the arbitrator and rejected. Accordingly, the court was statutorily mandated to confirm the award. (CPLR 7510; MVAIC v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 150 AD2d 215; Integrated Sales v Maxell Corp., 94 AD2d 221.)

As long as the arbitrators remain within their jurisdiction and do not reach an irrational result, they may "fashion the law to fit the facts before them” and their award will not be set aside because they erred in determination or application of the law. (Matter ofExercycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 NY2d 329, 336; Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/channel-textile-co-v-adams-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack