In re the Arbitration between American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 650, AFL-CIO

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 650, AFL-CIO

242 A.D.2d 873, 665 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10414

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D.2d 873 (In re the Arbitration between American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 650, AFL-CIO) 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 the Arbitration between American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 650, AFL-CIO, 242 A.D.2d 873, 665 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent’s cross motion to stay enforcement of the judgment confirming the arbitration award. The action pending in Buffalo City Court does not warrant the

[874]*874issuance of a stay because the parties and issues in that action are distinct from those in the instant proceeding (see, Bennell Hanover Assocs. v Neilson, 215 AD2d 710, 711). Further, respondent failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances warranting a stay (see, Matter of Coburn v Coburn, 109 AD2d 984, 985). (Appeal from Judgment and Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Howe, J.—Arbitration.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Wisner and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent’s cross motion to stay enforcement of the judgment confirming the arbitration award. The action pending in Buffalo City Court does not warrant the

[874]*874issuance of a stay because the parties and issues in that action are distinct from those in the instant proceeding (see, Bennell Hanover Assocs. v Neilson, 215 AD2d 710, 711). Further, respondent failed to demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances warranting a stay (see, Matter of Coburn v Coburn, 109 AD2d 984, 985). (Appeal from Judgment and Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Howe, J.—Arbitration.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Wisner and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 873, 665 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-american-federation-of-state-county-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack