Coty Inc. v. Anchor Construction, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coty Inc. v. Anchor Construction, Inc.

7 A.D.3d 438, 776 N.Y.S.2d 795, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7202

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

DecidedMay 25, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 438 (Coty Inc. v. Anchor Construction, Inc.) 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

Coty Inc. v. Anchor Construction, Inc., 7 A.D.3d 438, 776 N.Y.S.2d 795, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[439]*439Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), entered January 28, 2003, which, inter alia, granted respondent’s cross motion to vacate the arbitration award against it and remanded the matter for a new arbitration before a new panel of arbitrators, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitration award against respondent was properly vacated in light of the appearance of impropriety created by the involvement of the arbitrators in the parties’ dispute over prepayment of arbitration fees, a matter in which the arbitrators had a direct financial interest (see Matter of Grendi v LNL Constr. Mgt. Corp., 175 AD2d 775 [1991]; see also Matter of Catalyst Waste-to-Energy Corp. of Long Beach [City of Long Beach], 164 AD2d 817 [1990], appeal dismissed 76 NY2d 1017 [1990]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

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

[439]*439Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), entered January 28, 2003, which, inter alia, granted respondent’s cross motion to vacate the arbitration award against it and remanded the matter for a new arbitration before a new panel of arbitrators, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitration award against respondent was properly vacated in light of the appearance of impropriety created by the involvement of the arbitrators in the parties’ dispute over prepayment of arbitration fees, a matter in which the arbitrators had a direct financial interest (see Matter of Grendi v LNL Constr. Mgt. Corp., 175 AD2d 775 [1991]; see also Matter of Catalyst Waste-to-Energy Corp. of Long Beach [City of Long Beach], 164 AD2d 817 [1990], appeal dismissed 76 NY2d 1017 [1990]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 438, 776 N.Y.S.2d 795, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coty-inc-v-anchor-construction-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack