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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 1993·Published

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] priate. 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] priate. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

Pincite

192 A.D.2d 400 (In re Bargioni) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related