In re the Arbitration between Barbuto & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Barbuto & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

29 A.D.2d 927, 289 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4220

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

DecidedApril 18, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 927 (In re the Arbitration between Barbuto & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.) 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 Barbuto & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 29 A.D.2d 927, 289 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered August 24, 1967, herein appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion to confirm the arbitrator’s award is granted, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant. The statute enumerates the grounds upon which an award may be vacated or modified (CPLR 7511), none of which are shown to be present here. The demand for arbitration was made after the infant claimant attained his majority. Infancy, therefore, was not a disability. The issue of contributory negligence was properly one for the arbitrator (Matter of Short [MVAIC], 42 Mise 2d 682) who was required to pass upon the issues of fault and damages. (See, also, Matter of Stroud [MVAIC], 17 A D 2d 616, affd. 13 N Y 2d 611.) The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator merely because it may disagree with an award. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, McGivern and Rabin, JJ.

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

Order entered August 24, 1967, herein appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion to confirm the arbitrator’s award is granted, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant. The statute enumerates the grounds upon which an award may be vacated or modified (CPLR 7511), none of which are shown to be present here. The demand for arbitration was made after the infant claimant attained his majority. Infancy, therefore, was not a disability. The issue of contributory negligence was properly one for the arbitrator (Matter of Short [MVAIC], 42 Mise 2d 682) who was required to pass upon the issues of fault and damages. (See, also, Matter of Stroud [MVAIC], 17 A D 2d 616, affd. 13 N Y 2d 611.) The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator merely because it may disagree with an award. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, McGivern and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 927, 289 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-barbuto-motor-vehicle-accident-nyappdiv-1968.