Hillside Housing Corp. v. Local 32E, Building Service Employees International Union

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hillside Housing Corp. v. Local 32E, Building Service Employees International Union

40 A.D.2d 795, 338 N.Y.S.2d 95, 82 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2751, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3331

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 795 (Hillside Housing Corp. v. Local 32E, Building Service Employees International Union) 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

Hillside Housing Corp. v. Local 32E, Building Service Employees International Union, 40 A.D.2d 795, 338 N.Y.S.2d 95, 82 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2751, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 17, 1972, unanimously modified, on the law, to add the further provision that the award of the arbitrator be and it hereby is confirmed, and judgment otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We agree that Special Term correctly concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers and that the award is adequate as to form and content. The arbitrator was not required to state the reasons or grounds for his determination of the issues submitted (see Korein v. Rabin, 29 A D 2d 351; Matter of Bay Ridge Med. Group v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N. Y., 22 A D 2d 807). However, on denial of the motion to vacate or modify the award, the court should have confirmed the award (see CPLR 7511, subd. [e]). Concur—Nunez, J. P., McNally, Tilzer, Eager and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 17, 1972, unanimously modified, on the law, to add the further provision that the award of the arbitrator be and it hereby is confirmed, and judgment otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We agree that Special Term correctly concluded that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers and that the award is adequate as to form and content. The arbitrator was not required to state the reasons or grounds for his determination of the issues submitted (see Korein v. Rabin, 29 A D 2d 351; Matter of Bay Ridge Med. Group v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N. Y., 22 A D 2d 807). However, on denial of the motion to vacate or modify the award, the court should have confirmed the award (see CPLR 7511, subd. [e]). Concur—Nunez, J. P., McNally, Tilzer, Eager and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 795, 338 N.Y.S.2d 95, 82 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2751, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hillside-housing-corp-v-local-32e-building-service-employees-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack