Gettinger Associates, L.P. v. Abraham Kamber & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gettinger Associates, L.P. v. Abraham Kamber & Co.

301 A.D.2d 370, 755 N.Y.S.2d 16, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 370 (Gettinger Associates, L.P. v. Abraham Kamber & Co.) 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

Gettinger Associates, L.P. v. Abraham Kamber & Co., 301 A.D.2d 370, 755 N.Y.S.2d 16, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered March 6, 2002, which granted petitioner subtenant’s motion to confirm and denied respondent sublandlord’s cross motion to vacate an arbitration award, and from a so-ordered stipulation correcting the amount of the award, entered April 25, 2002, unanimously dismissed, with, costs against respondent-appellant.

The notice of appeal dated May 24, 2002, purporting to appeal from a March 6, 2002 order denying vacatur of the arbitration award, was untimely, and the so-ordered stipulation merely correcting a typographical error in the amount of the [371]*371award as recited in the original order had no effect on the appealable issues arising from the original order and thus did not create a new right of appeal (see Kitchen v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 221 AD2d 195; L.J.B. Corp. v City of New York, 182 AD2d 485, 487, lv denied 80 NY2d 755). Were we to reach the merits, we would find that Supreme Court correctly determined that respondent sublandlord had failed to demonstrate, by the requisite clear and convincing evidence, that the subtenant had committed fraud on the panel so as to warrant vacatur. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered March 6, 2002, which granted petitioner subtenant’s motion to confirm and denied respondent sublandlord’s cross motion to vacate an arbitration award, and from a so-ordered stipulation correcting the amount of the award, entered April 25, 2002, unanimously dismissed, with, costs against respondent-appellant.

The notice of appeal dated May 24, 2002, purporting to appeal from a March 6, 2002 order denying vacatur of the arbitration award, was untimely, and the so-ordered stipulation merely correcting a typographical error in the amount of the [371]*371award as recited in the original order had no effect on the appealable issues arising from the original order and thus did not create a new right of appeal (see Kitchen v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 221 AD2d 195; L.J.B. Corp. v City of New York, 182 AD2d 485, 487, lv denied 80 NY2d 755). Were we to reach the merits, we would find that Supreme Court correctly determined that respondent sublandlord had failed to demonstrate, by the requisite clear and convincing evidence, that the subtenant had committed fraud on the panel so as to warrant vacatur. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 370, 755 N.Y.S.2d 16, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gettinger-associates-lp-v-abraham-kamber-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack