Goldberg v. Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP

52 A.D.3d 392, 860 N.Y.S.2d 931
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 24, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 392 (Goldberg v. Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP) 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
Goldberg v. Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, 52 A.D.3d 392, 860 N.Y.S.2d 931 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered October 17, 2007, which granted the petition to confirm an arbitration award and awarded petitioner the principal amount of $453,468.62, plus interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitration award was properly confirmed as it did not violate a strong public policy, was not irrational, and did not exceed the arbitrator’s authority (see Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 NY2d 33, 37 [1991]; CPLR 7511 [b]). Indeed, the arbitrator offered a well-reasoned justification for his interpretation of the parties’ agreement, and there exists no basis for vacatur thereof (see Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 326 [1999]). As for the award of counsel fees to petitioner, it was respondents that first sought such fees in their counterclaim, and mutual demands for counsel fees in an arbitration proceeding consti[393]*393tute, in effect, an agreement to submit the issue to arbitration, with the resultant award being valid and enforceable (see Matter of Warner Bros. Records [PPX Enters.], 7 AD3d 330 [2004]; compare Matter of Matza v Oshman, Helfenstein & Matza, 33 AD3d 493, 494-495 [2006]). While respondents may have attempted to withdraw the request for attorneys’ fees in connection with their counterclaim, there was no such attempt in connection with their defense of the arbitration proceeding. Concur—Lippman, RJ., Tom, Gonzalez, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Steyn v. CRTV, LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 5341 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of R.F. Lafferty & Co., Inc. v. Winter
2018 NY Slip Op 3489 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. v. Pritchard
107 A.D.3d 476 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Bear, Stearns & Co. v. International Capital & Management Co.
96 A.D.3d 531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. v. International Capital & Management Co.
32 Misc. 3d 607 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
New York City v. Transport Workers Union of America
60 A.D.3d 1 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Bear Stearns & Co. v. Fulco
21 Misc. 3d 823 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 A.D.3d 392, 860 N.Y.S.2d 931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-thelen-reid-brown-raysman-steiner-llp-nyappdiv-2008.