DeDe Construction Corp. v. Alps Mechanical, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeDe Construction Corp. v. Alps Mechanical, Inc.

303 A.D.2d 297, 755 N.Y.S.2d 842, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3067

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 297 (DeDe Construction Corp. v. Alps Mechanical, 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

DeDe Construction Corp. v. Alps Mechanical, Inc., 303 A.D.2d 297, 755 N.Y.S.2d 842, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3067 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered July 22, 2002, which, inter alia, granted petitioners’ application pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, and denied respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondent has failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator’s award was so irrational as to require vacatur (see Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]). Indeed, we perceive no support for respondent’s contention that the award consistently included amounts for items beyond the scope of the parties’ contracts, particularly in view of the circumstance that the award was in an amount substantially less than that sought by petitioners under the contracts. Under the circumstances, we are unable to conclude that the arbitrator “gave a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute and, in effect, made a new contract for the parties” (see Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson], 8 NY2d 377, 383 [I960]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Rosenberger, Lerner, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered July 22, 2002, which, inter alia, granted petitioners’ application pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, and denied respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondent has failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator’s award was so irrational as to require vacatur (see Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]). Indeed, we perceive no support for respondent’s contention that the award consistently included amounts for items beyond the scope of the parties’ contracts, particularly in view of the circumstance that the award was in an amount substantially less than that sought by petitioners under the contracts. Under the circumstances, we are unable to conclude that the arbitrator “gave a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute and, in effect, made a new contract for the parties” (see Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson], 8 NY2d 377, 383 [I960]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Rosenberger, Lerner, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 297, 755 N.Y.S.2d 842, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dede-construction-corp-v-alps-mechanical-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack