D'Addario v. Weinstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Addario v. Weinstein

250 A.D.2d 847, 672 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6047

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 847 (D'Addario v. Weinstein) 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

D'Addario v. Weinstein, 250 A.D.2d 847, 672 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6047 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, Arnold Weinstein appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), entered November 19, 1997, which denied his motion to vacate the award and granted the respondents’ cross motion to confirm the award.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that an arbitration award may not be vacated unless it is totally irrational, violative of a strong public policy, or clearly exceeds a specifically-enumerated limitation of the arbitrator’s power (see, Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.], 70 NY2d 907; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 318). The award here was not irrational, did not violate any public policy, and did not exceed a specifically-enumerated limitation on the arbitrators’ powers.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, 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 stay arbitration, Arnold Weinstein appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), entered November 19, 1997, which denied his motion to vacate the award and granted the respondents’ cross motion to confirm the award.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that an arbitration award may not be vacated unless it is totally irrational, violative of a strong public policy, or clearly exceeds a specifically-enumerated limitation of the arbitrator’s power (see, Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.], 70 NY2d 907; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 318). The award here was not irrational, did not violate any public policy, and did not exceed a specifically-enumerated limitation on the arbitrators’ powers.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 847, 672 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daddario-v-weinstein-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack