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

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 932 (In Matter of Double-M Constr. Corp. v. Central School District No. 1) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 932, 391 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-matter-of-double-m-constr-corp-v-central-school-district-no-1-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack