In Matter of Double-M Constr. Corp. v. Central School District No. 1

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In Matter of Double-M Constr. Corp. v. Central School District No. 1

55 A.D.2d 932, 391 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10194

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 24, 1977·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated June 8, 1976, which, inter alia, granted the application and denied appellant’s cross motion to vacate the award and to stay any future arbitration proceedings. Proceeding remitted to Special Term to hear and report, with findings of fact, on the issue of whether there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. The appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The arbitrators’ request for additional compensation after the hearings concluded and before rendering their award, was questionable conduct (see Matter of Franks [Penn-Uranium Corp.], 4 AD2d 39). A hearing is required to determine whether improper methods were used to gain the increase. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham and Damiani, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated June 8, 1976, which, inter alia, granted the application and denied appellant’s cross motion to vacate the award and to stay any future arbitration proceedings. Proceeding remitted to Special Term to hear and report, with findings of fact, on the issue of whether there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. The appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The arbitrators’ request for additional compensation after the hearings concluded and before rendering their award, was questionable conduct (see Matter of Franks [Penn-Uranium Corp.], 4 AD2d 39). A hearing is required to determine whether improper methods were used to gain the increase. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham and Damiani, JJ., concur.

In Matter of Double-M Constr. Corp. v. Central School District No. 1, 55 A.D.2d 932, 391 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

55 A.D.2d 932 (In Matter of Double-M Constr. Corp. v. Central School District No. 1) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related