Edwards v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edwards v. Gonzalez

54 A.D.3d 657, 863 N.Y.S.2d 264

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

DecidedSeptember 2, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.3d 657 (Edwards v. Gonzalez) 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

Edwards v. Gonzalez, 54 A.D.3d 657, 863 N.Y.S.2d 264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whalen, J.), dated December 20, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion to confirm an arbitration award dated March 26, 2007, determining, after a hearing, that the plaintiff was not entitled to an award of damages, and is in favor of the defendant and against him confirming the arbitration award.

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

[658]*658The plaintiff failed to demonstrate any of the statutory grounds for vacating or modifying the arbitrator’s award. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant’s motion to confirm the award, and correctly confirmed it (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Dental Health Care, P.C., 24 AD3d 437, 438 [2005]; see also Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers’ Union of Am., Local 100, AFL-CIO, 6 NY3d 332, 336 [2005]; Cifuentes v Rose & Thistle, Ltd., 32 AD3d 816 [2006]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Lifson, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whalen, J.), dated December 20, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion to confirm an arbitration award dated March 26, 2007, determining, after a hearing, that the plaintiff was not entitled to an award of damages, and is in favor of the defendant and against him confirming the arbitration award.

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

[658]*658The plaintiff failed to demonstrate any of the statutory grounds for vacating or modifying the arbitrator’s award. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant’s motion to confirm the award, and correctly confirmed it (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Dental Health Care, P.C., 24 AD3d 437, 438 [2005]; see also Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers’ Union of Am., Local 100, AFL-CIO, 6 NY3d 332, 336 [2005]; Cifuentes v Rose & Thistle, Ltd., 32 AD3d 816 [2006]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Lifson, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.3d 657, 863 N.Y.S.2d 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-gonzalez-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack