Daly v. Lehman Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daly v. Lehman Bros.

252 A.D.2d 357, 675 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7895

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 357 (Daly v. Lehman Bros.) 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

Daly v. Lehman Bros., 252 A.D.2d 357, 675 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered May 5, 1997, denying the petition to vacate or, in the alternative, to modify an arbitration award dated June 26, 1996, and granting the cross motion of respondent Lehman Brothers to confirm the award in its favor, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An arbitration award may not be vacated unless it is violative of strong public policy, utterly irrational, or made in clear excess of a specifically enumerated limitation upon the arbitrator’s power (see, Hackett v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 86 NY2d 146, 154-155). Here, petitioner has failed to advance any ground upon which the challenged award might be disturbed. While he contends primarily that the evidence merited the conclusion that respondent had not paid him certain earned wages, the arbitrators’ evident decision to credit evidence justifying the contrary conclusion, that petitioner had in fact been paid what he was owed, was not irrational. Nor does there exist any basis to modify the award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (c) (1). The claimed error affecting the award is not computational in nature and, accordingly is not error of the sort remediable under the authority of that statute (see, Matter of Ververs & Schueller Co. [Emory Mach. & Tool Co.], 190 AD2d 1079). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered May 5, 1997, denying the petition to vacate or, in the alternative, to modify an arbitration award dated June 26, 1996, and granting the cross motion of respondent Lehman Brothers to confirm the award in its favor, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An arbitration award may not be vacated unless it is violative of strong public policy, utterly irrational, or made in clear excess of a specifically enumerated limitation upon the arbitrator’s power (see, Hackett v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 86 NY2d 146, 154-155). Here, petitioner has failed to advance any ground upon which the challenged award might be disturbed. While he contends primarily that the evidence merited the conclusion that respondent had not paid him certain earned wages, the arbitrators’ evident decision to credit evidence justifying the contrary conclusion, that petitioner had in fact been paid what he was owed, was not irrational. Nor does there exist any basis to modify the award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (c) (1). The claimed error affecting the award is not computational in nature and, accordingly is not error of the sort remediable under the authority of that statute (see, Matter of Ververs & Schueller Co. [Emory Mach. & Tool Co.], 190 AD2d 1079). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 357, 675 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daly-v-lehman-bros-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack