Eisenberg v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Eisenberg v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

56 Misc. 2d 770, 289 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1967 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1123

DecidedNovember 3, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 56 Misc. 2d 770 (Eisenberg v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eisenberg v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 56 Misc. 2d 770, 289 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1967 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1123 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Joseph Life, J.

This motion for an order to confirm the arbitrator’s award is granted. The judgment to be entered should include interest from the date of the award to the date of the entry of the judgment. The respondent is mistaken in relying upon Matter of Mossman v. MVAIC (19 A D 2d 842) in its objection to the award of costs. Here, as in that case, the arbitrator specifically included a provision that the administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association should be borne by MVAIC, and that determination was not disturbed by the Appellate Division in Mossman (supra). The items which the Appellate Division disallowed were those which had not been specifically included in the arbitrator’s award.

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

Joseph Life, J.

This motion for an order to confirm the arbitrator’s award is granted. The judgment to be entered should include interest from the date of the award to the date of the entry of the judgment. The respondent is mistaken in relying upon Matter of Mossman v. MVAIC (19 A D 2d 842) in its objection to the award of costs. Here, as in that case, the arbitrator specifically included a provision that the administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association should be borne by MVAIC, and that determination was not disturbed by the Appellate Division in Mossman (supra). The items which the Appellate Division disallowed were those which had not been specifically included in the arbitrator’s award.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Misc. 2d 770, 289 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1967 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisenberg-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nysupct-1967.