In re Arbitration between Accessible Development Corp. & Ocean House Center Inc.

4 A.D.3d 217, 772 N.Y.S.2d 263, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1785
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 19, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 217 (In re Arbitration between Accessible Development Corp. & Ocean House Center Inc.) 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 re Arbitration between Accessible Development Corp. & Ocean House Center Inc., 4 A.D.3d 217, 772 N.Y.S.2d 263, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Lottie Wilkins, J.), entered June 20, 2003, which denied the petition to confirm the award, granted respondent’s application to vacate the award, and scheduled a rehearing of the proceeding before the same arbitrator, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Prior to the commencement of this proceeding to arbitrate a dispute over payment for alterations to respondent’s adult care facility, a grand jury indicted respondent’s two principals for fraud, theft and falsification of business records. The grand jury heard testimony by petitioner’s owner that he had participated in a scheme to divert construction mortgage funds intended for the renovation, to pay instead for renovations on the private home of one of respondent’s principals. Although this information might have drastically altered the outcome of the arbitration, the record contains no information about the scheme or the grand jury action. Instead, the three principals testified before the arbitrator as if those events had never occurred.

Although discovery of new evidence is generally not a ground for vacating an arbitration award, these circumstances warranted a finding that the award herein was procured by corruption and fraud (CPLR 7511 [b] [1]) and that further proceedings are necessary (Bevona v Supervised Cleaning & Maintenance Co., 160 AD2d 605 [1990]; Matter of Science Dev. Corp. [Schonberger], 156 AD2d 253 [1989], lv dismissed 76 NY2d 845 [1990]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Williams, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

Policy Admin. Solutions, Inc. v. QBE Holdings, Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 2878 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
1552 Broadway Retail Owner LLC v. McDonald's Corp.
54 Misc. 3d 1206A (New York Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 A.D.3d 217, 772 N.Y.S.2d 263, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-arbitration-between-accessible-development-corp-ocean-house-center-nyappdiv-2004.