Hirschfeld v. Gerard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hirschfeld v. Gerard

266 A.D.2d 51, 698 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11582

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 51 (Hirschfeld v. Gerard) 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

Hirschfeld v. Gerard, 266 A.D.2d 51, 698 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered January 14, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application to vacate an arbitration award in an employment contract dispute, confirmed such award, and entered judgment thereon, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

More than three months into a five year employment agreement as Editor-in-Chief of a start-up newspaper, respondent was terminated by petitioner. The arbitrator enforced a provision of the agreement which liquidated damages at the salary respondent would have earned from the date of termination to the end of the contract period, if respondent were terminated “for any reason whatsoever”. Respondent presents no basis to vacate the award under CPLR 7511 (b). The arbitrator’s determinations on the enforceability of the liquidated damages clause and the basis for respondent’s termination were not irrational (see, Matter of Sims v Siegelson, 246 AD2d 374, 376). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered January 14, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application to vacate an arbitration award in an employment contract dispute, confirmed such award, and entered judgment thereon, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

More than three months into a five year employment agreement as Editor-in-Chief of a start-up newspaper, respondent was terminated by petitioner. The arbitrator enforced a provision of the agreement which liquidated damages at the salary respondent would have earned from the date of termination to the end of the contract period, if respondent were terminated “for any reason whatsoever”. Respondent presents no basis to vacate the award under CPLR 7511 (b). The arbitrator’s determinations on the enforceability of the liquidated damages clause and the basis for respondent’s termination were not irrational (see, Matter of Sims v Siegelson, 246 AD2d 374, 376). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 51, 698 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirschfeld-v-gerard-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack