Dortheimer v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dortheimer v. Safir

49 A.D.3d 338, 852 N.Y.2d 137

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 338 (Dortheimer v. Safir) 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

Dortheimer v. Safir, 49 A.D.3d 338, 852 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner has not established that the arbitration award was in manifest disregard of the law, since there has been no showing that the arbitrators ignored or refused to apply a governing legal principle (see Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479-481 [2006], cert dismissed — US — , 127 S Ct 34 [2006]). The arbitrators were presented with multiple claims and issues, and nothing in their lump sum award suggests that they deliberately disregarded Labor Law issues regarding unpaid wages. Moreover, even if we were to assume that the Labor Law constituted the predominant governing law herein, we would conclude that petitioner failed to establish that the arbitrators deliberately chose to ignore such law or refused to apply it, as opposed to merely misunderstanding or misapplying the law. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Petitioner has not established that the arbitration award was in manifest disregard of the law, since there has been no showing that the arbitrators ignored or refused to apply a governing legal principle (see Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479-481 [2006], cert dismissed — US — , 127 S Ct 34 [2006]). The arbitrators were presented with multiple claims and issues, and nothing in their lump sum award suggests that they deliberately disregarded Labor Law issues regarding unpaid wages. Moreover, even if we were to assume that the Labor Law constituted the predominant governing law herein, we would conclude that petitioner failed to establish that the arbitrators deliberately chose to ignore such law or refused to apply it, as opposed to merely misunderstanding or misapplying the law. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 338, 852 N.Y.2d 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dortheimer-v-safir-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack