In re the Arbitration between Angel Fabrics, Ltd. & Cravat Pierre, Ltd.

51 A.D.2d 951, 381 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11657
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 25, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 951 (In re the Arbitration between Angel Fabrics, Ltd. & Cravat Pierre, Ltd.) 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 Angel Fabrics, Ltd. & Cravat Pierre, Ltd., 51 A.D.2d 951, 381 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Order and judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 19 and October 1, 1975, which granted the application of the claimant-respondent to confirm an arbitration award and denied appellants’ application to vacate [952]*952the award, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellants $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The parties entered into a written agreement for the purchase and sale of fabrics on or about March 7, 1973. The agreement provided for arbitration of all disputes. A dispute arose which was submitted to arbitration and which resulted in an award in respondent’s favor. Special Term denied appellants’ application for vacatur and granted the cross motion to confirm the award. As to the two contentions raised by appellants below, i.e., (1) the arbitrators improperly refused to grant an adjournment of the final hearing and (2) improper conduct on the part of one of the arbitrators, we affirm for the reasons stated by Mangan, J. Appellants further contend that the award was contrary to the facts and the law of this State. They frankly recognize the traditional rule that an arbitrator’s decision is not reviewable because of alleged errors in construing the law and the facts, but they urge us to dó so in this case because of the arbitrators’ egregious disregard for the state of the law and the facts. The errors pressed upon us are not statutory grounds for vacatur pursuant to CPLR 7511. Only a completely irrational award would justify review and vacatur by this court. (See Lentine v Fundaro, 29 NY2d 382.) Furthermore, this issue was not raised below and our review should be limited to issues raised in the record and passed upon by Special Term. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

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

Related

Diarrassouba v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York Inc.
123 A.D.3d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Talansky v. Schulman
2 A.D.3d 355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
South Street Ltd. Partnership v. Jade Sea Restaurant, Inc.
187 A.D.2d 397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Lewis v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
99 A.D.2d 246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Ford v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n
94 A.D.2d 262 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Blue Grass Partners v. Bruns, Nordeman, Rea & Co.
75 A.D.2d 791 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Arthur Richards Ltd. v. Brampton Textiles, Ltd.
59 A.D.2d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Berger v. Fete Cab Corp.
57 A.D.2d 784 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 A.D.2d 951, 381 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-angel-fabrics-ltd-cravat-pierre-ltd-nyappdiv-1976.