Goldberg v. Nugent
This text of 85 A.D.3d 459 (Goldberg v. Nugent) 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.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered December 7, 2010, which granted the petition to vacate an arbitration award, denied respondent’s cross petition to confirm the award and remanded the matter for a rehearing before a new arbitration panel, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The court properly determined that the panel exceeded its authority by granting relief on claims not asserted in respondent’s statement of claim (see Matter of Spear, Leeds & Kellogg v Bullseye Sec., 291 AD2d 255 [2002]; CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]). The relief of liquidating respondent’s interests in certain undisputed investments, awarding him an amount representing estimated future payments and severing the parties’ business relationship was not requested in the statement of claim. Petitioners were not permitted to put in evidence on those matters, and the award disregarded amounts already paid to respondent. Furthermore, remanding the matter to a different arbitration panel was a provident exercise of the court’s discretion (see East Ramapo Cent. School Dist. v East Ramapo Teachers Assn., 108 AD2d 717 [1985]; CPLR 7511 [d]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Román, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
85 A.D.3d 459, 924 N.Y.S.2d 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-nugent-nyappdiv-2011.