Fentron Architectural Metals Corp. v. Solow Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fentron Architectural Metals Corp. v. Solow Development Corp.

50 A.D.2d 518, 375 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12209

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 518 (Fentron Architectural Metals Corp. v. Solow Development Corp.) 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

Fentron Architectural Metals Corp. v. Solow Development Corp., 50 A.D.2d 518, 375 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order and judgment (one paper) entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, on January 21, 1975 granting petitioner-respondent’s motion to confirm an arbitration award in its favor and dismissing respondent-appellant’s cross motion to vacate same, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to respondent. On this record we find that the controversies giving rise to the award were properly submitted to arbitration and that the determination of the arbitrators, finding respondent-appellant responsible for certain contract specifications, did not exceed their power or authority or misconstrue the applicability of the New York City Building Code, as alleged by respondent-appellant, and that the award thereunder was not against public policy. It has been held that even where arbitrators have been found to commit errors in law or fact there is no basis for judicial interference. (Matter of Raisler Corp. [New York City Housing Auth.], 32 NY2d 274.) In the case at bar, neither fraud nor misconduct having been demonstrated, and lacking any grounds for review on a statutory basis, the award should not be disturbed. We have fully considered the other contentions raised by respondent-appellant and find them to be without merit. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Murphy, Tilzer, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

— Order and judgment (one paper) entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, on January 21, 1975 granting petitioner-respondent’s motion to confirm an arbitration award in its favor and dismissing respondent-appellant’s cross motion to vacate same, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal to respondent. On this record we find that the controversies giving rise to the award were properly submitted to arbitration and that the determination of the arbitrators, finding respondent-appellant responsible for certain contract specifications, did not exceed their power or authority or misconstrue the applicability of the New York City Building Code, as alleged by respondent-appellant, and that the award thereunder was not against public policy. It has been held that even where arbitrators have been found to commit errors in law or fact there is no basis for judicial interference. (Matter of Raisler Corp. [New York City Housing Auth.], 32 NY2d 274.) In the case at bar, neither fraud nor misconduct having been demonstrated, and lacking any grounds for review on a statutory basis, the award should not be disturbed. We have fully considered the other contentions raised by respondent-appellant and find them to be without merit. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Murphy, Tilzer, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 518, 375 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fentron-architectural-metals-corp-v-solow-development-corp-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack