In re Bargioni

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Bargioni

192 A.D.2d 400, 596 N.Y.S.2d 67

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

DecidedApril 15, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 400 (In re Bargioni) 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 Bargioni, 192 A.D.2d 400, 596 N.Y.S.2d 67 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce McM. Wright, J.), entered December 15, 1992, which granted petitioner’s motion to compel compliance with certain subpoenas, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion denied, without costs. Judicial interference with the conduct of an arbitration proceeding should generally be avoided unless "absolutely necessary for the protection of the rights of a party” (Matter of MVAIC [McCabe], 19 AD2d 349, 353; see also, Matter of Ghitelman v Ghitelman, 160 AD2d 528). On the record before us, the decision of the arbitrators refusing to order that respondents appear at the arbitration cannot be said to fall within that exception, as there has been no showing that respondents have any significant personal knowledge of the facts surrounding petitioner’s termination of employment. Under such circumstances, judicial enforcement of the subpoenas seeking to compel respondents’ attendance was inappro[401]*401priate. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce McM. Wright, J.), entered December 15, 1992, which granted petitioner’s motion to compel compliance with certain subpoenas, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion denied, without costs. Judicial interference with the conduct of an arbitration proceeding should generally be avoided unless "absolutely necessary for the protection of the rights of a party” (Matter of MVAIC [McCabe], 19 AD2d 349, 353; see also, Matter of Ghitelman v Ghitelman, 160 AD2d 528). On the record before us, the decision of the arbitrators refusing to order that respondents appear at the arbitration cannot be said to fall within that exception, as there has been no showing that respondents have any significant personal knowledge of the facts surrounding petitioner’s termination of employment. Under such circumstances, judicial enforcement of the subpoenas seeking to compel respondents’ attendance was inappro[401]*401priate. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 400, 596 N.Y.S.2d 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bargioni-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack