in Matter of Warren Wabst v. Scoppetta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

in Matter of Warren Wabst v. Scoppetta

56 A.D.2d 399, 867 N.Y.S.2d 332

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

DecidedNovember 25, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 399 (in Matter of Warren Wabst v. Scoppetta) 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 Warren Wabst v. Scoppetta, 56 A.D.2d 399, 867 N.Y.S.2d 332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered February 4, 2008, to the extent appealed from, denying petitioner’s application to vacate that portion of an arbitration award, dated November 16, 2006, which upheld certain disciplinary charges, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The arbitrator’s refusal to address petitioner’s state law defenses to charges 9 and 10, based on his mistaken belief that he lacked jurisdiction, does not deprive the award of finality and definiteness (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]; see Matter of Meisels v Uhr, 79 NY2d 526, 536 [1992]; Matter of Solow Bldg. Co. v Morgan Guar. Trust Co. ofN.Y., 6 AD3d 356, 356-357 [2004], Iv [400]*400denied 3 NY3d 605 [2004], cert denied 543 US 1148 [2005]; Purpura v Bear Stearns Cos., 238 AD2d 216 [1997], Iv denied 90 NY2d 806 [1997]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered February 4, 2008, to the extent appealed from, denying petitioner’s application to vacate that portion of an arbitration award, dated November 16, 2006, which upheld certain disciplinary charges, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The arbitrator’s refusal to address petitioner’s state law defenses to charges 9 and 10, based on his mistaken belief that he lacked jurisdiction, does not deprive the award of finality and definiteness (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]; see Matter of Meisels v Uhr, 79 NY2d 526, 536 [1992]; Matter of Solow Bldg. Co. v Morgan Guar. Trust Co. ofN.Y., 6 AD3d 356, 356-357 [2004], Iv [400]*400denied 3 NY3d 605 [2004], cert denied 543 US 1148 [2005]; Purpura v Bear Stearns Cos., 238 AD2d 216 [1997], Iv denied 90 NY2d 806 [1997]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 399, 867 N.Y.S.2d 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-matter-of-warren-wabst-v-scoppetta-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack