Chazin v. Parmet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chazin v. Parmet

186 A.D.2d 80

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 80 (Chazin v. Parmet) 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

Chazin v. Parmet, 186 A.D.2d 80 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered October 7, 1991, which, inter alia, denied petitioner’s application to vacate and set aside an arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the court that the arbitrator’s decision to permit rescission of the screenwriter’s agreement did not irrationally rewrite the agreement. Under CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii), an arbitration award "will not be vacated even though the court concludes that [the arbitrator’s] interpretation of the agreement misconstrues or disregards its plain meaning or misapplies substantive rules of law, unless it is violative of a strong public policy, or is totally irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on his power” (Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308). None of those circumstances are present here. While appellant disputes the arbitrator’s conclusion that under their agreement, respondent Kortz assigned the copyright for his screenplay in exchange for the promise of compensation when the project was capitalized, the decision to permit rescission is grounded on the determination that there was no prospect after 9 years for obtaining financing for the film project and, therefore, no chance that the partnership would compensate Kortz for his services.

We have considered appellant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Asch 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 (David Saxe, J.), entered October 7, 1991, which, inter alia, denied petitioner’s application to vacate and set aside an arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the court that the arbitrator’s decision to permit rescission of the screenwriter’s agreement did not irrationally rewrite the agreement. Under CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii), an arbitration award "will not be vacated even though the court concludes that [the arbitrator’s] interpretation of the agreement misconstrues or disregards its plain meaning or misapplies substantive rules of law, unless it is violative of a strong public policy, or is totally irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on his power” (Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308). None of those circumstances are present here. While appellant disputes the arbitrator’s conclusion that under their agreement, respondent Kortz assigned the copyright for his screenplay in exchange for the promise of compensation when the project was capitalized, the decision to permit rescission is grounded on the determination that there was no prospect after 9 years for obtaining financing for the film project and, therefore, no chance that the partnership would compensate Kortz for his services.

We have considered appellant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chazin-v-parmet-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack