Felder v. Carroll

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Felder v. Carroll

40 A.D.3d 652, 833 N.Y.S.2d 416

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

DecidedMay 1, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 652 (Felder v. Carroll) 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

Felder v. Carroll, 40 A.D.3d 652, 833 N.Y.S.2d 416 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), entered April 4, 2005, as, upon reargument, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, there was a rational basis for the arbitrators’ determination that the appellant violated 22 NYCRR 1200.11 (c) (2) (iii) and 1400.5 (a), and directive that the appellant return $18,543 in legal fees paid to it by the respondent (see Behrins & Behrins v Sammarco, 305 AD2d 346 [2003]; Mulcahy v Mulcahy, 285 AD2d 587 [2001]; cf. Gross v Gross, 36 AD3d 318 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not err in, in effect, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding (see Matter of Forest Riv., Inc. v Stewart, 34 AD3d 474 [2006]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v City of Yonkers, 21 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2005]; see also Matter of Mc-Namee, Lochner, Titus & Williams [Killeen], 235 AD2d 17 [1997]). Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), entered April 4, 2005, as, upon reargument, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, there was a rational basis for the arbitrators’ determination that the appellant violated 22 NYCRR 1200.11 (c) (2) (iii) and 1400.5 (a), and directive that the appellant return $18,543 in legal fees paid to it by the respondent (see Behrins & Behrins v Sammarco, 305 AD2d 346 [2003]; Mulcahy v Mulcahy, 285 AD2d 587 [2001]; cf. Gross v Gross, 36 AD3d 318 [2006]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not err in, in effect, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding (see Matter of Forest Riv., Inc. v Stewart, 34 AD3d 474 [2006]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v City of Yonkers, 21 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2005]; see also Matter of Mc-Namee, Lochner, Titus & Williams [Killeen], 235 AD2d 17 [1997]). Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 652, 833 N.Y.S.2d 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felder-v-carroll-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack