Edison Miami Corp. v. Hirschfeld Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edison Miami Corp. v. Hirschfeld Realty

198 A.D.2d 45, 603 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10482

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 45 (Edison Miami Corp. v. Hirschfeld Realty) 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

Edison Miami Corp. v. Hirschfeld Realty, 198 A.D.2d 45, 603 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.), entered December 2, 1992, which granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to respondent’s argument that the award is not final and definite in that it failed to address the issue of whether respondent was a party to the agreement submitted to the arbitrator, and that it exceeded the arbitrator’s powers in that it purports to hold respondent liable under an agreement to which it was not a party. The award specifically refers to respondent as a party to the agreement, and creates no potential confusion as to respondent’s exact obligations under the award. Other than to note that respondent was described in and signed the agreement as a party, and participated in an arbitration in which its participation had been duly demanded, the arbitrator’s reasons for holding respondent liable under the agreement are of no moment to the court (Matter of Guetta [Raxon Fabrics Corp.J 123 AD2d 40, 43-44). We have reviewed appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, 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 (Edith Miller, J.), entered December 2, 1992, which granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to respondent’s argument that the award is not final and definite in that it failed to address the issue of whether respondent was a party to the agreement submitted to the arbitrator, and that it exceeded the arbitrator’s powers in that it purports to hold respondent liable under an agreement to which it was not a party. The award specifically refers to respondent as a party to the agreement, and creates no potential confusion as to respondent’s exact obligations under the award. Other than to note that respondent was described in and signed the agreement as a party, and participated in an arbitration in which its participation had been duly demanded, the arbitrator’s reasons for holding respondent liable under the agreement are of no moment to the court (Matter of Guetta [Raxon Fabrics Corp.J 123 AD2d 40, 43-44). We have reviewed appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 45, 603 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edison-miami-corp-v-hirschfeld-realty-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack