Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Mindes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Mindes

12 A.D.3d 162, 783 N.Y.S.2d 471, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13086

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

DecidedNovember 4, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 162 (Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Mindes) 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

Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Mindes, 12 A.D.3d 162, 783 N.Y.S.2d 471, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered October 14, 2003, which confirmed an arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The award of the deceased employee’s salary for the period after his death and for the remainder of his contractual term of employment was not an irrational construction of the agreement. The employment was terminated upon a wrongful ground asserted by the employer. Under the circumstances, the arbitrator was entitled to use her broad, equitable powers to do justice and fashion an appropriate remedy (see generally Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]). Petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator exceeded her powers is merely an ineffective semantic variation on its contention that the arbitrator construed the agreement irrationally, and is, in any event, without merit (see e.g. Matter of Chaindom Enters., Inc. [Furgang & Adwar, L.L.P.], 10 AD3d 495 [2004]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered October 14, 2003, which confirmed an arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The award of the deceased employee’s salary for the period after his death and for the remainder of his contractual term of employment was not an irrational construction of the agreement. The employment was terminated upon a wrongful ground asserted by the employer. Under the circumstances, the arbitrator was entitled to use her broad, equitable powers to do justice and fashion an appropriate remedy (see generally Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308 [1984]). Petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator exceeded her powers is merely an ineffective semantic variation on its contention that the arbitrator construed the agreement irrationally, and is, in any event, without merit (see e.g. Matter of Chaindom Enters., Inc. [Furgang & Adwar, L.L.P.], 10 AD3d 495 [2004]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 162, 783 N.Y.S.2d 471, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilman-ciocia-inc-v-mindes-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack