In re the Arbitration between Bevtek Corp. & Mr. Natural, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Bevtek Corp. & Mr. Natural, Inc.

2 A.D.3d 157, 767 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12887

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 157 (In re the Arbitration between Bevtek Corp. & Mr. Natural, Inc.) 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 Bevtek Corp. & Mr. Natural, Inc., 2 A.D.3d 157, 767 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 18, 2003, which granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award, denied respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award in part, [158]*158and awarded petitioner the total sum of $137,692.88, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondent has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting vacatur of the arbitrator’s award. The arbitrator did not exceed her authority in rendering this award, particularly in view of the provision in the agreement that a distributor whose route was terminated for cause was nonetheless entitled to compensation for the value of that route. Under the circumstances, we are unable to conclude that the arbitrator “gave a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute and, in effect, made a new contract for the parties” (see Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson], 8 NY2d 377, 383 [I960]). Nor is there anything in this award or the agreement from which to conclude that enforcement of the award would violate public policy (Matter of Etkin & Co. [Play It Again Apparel], 235 AD2d 264 [1997]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Williams, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 18, 2003, which granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award, denied respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award in part, [158]*158and awarded petitioner the total sum of $137,692.88, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondent has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting vacatur of the arbitrator’s award. The arbitrator did not exceed her authority in rendering this award, particularly in view of the provision in the agreement that a distributor whose route was terminated for cause was nonetheless entitled to compensation for the value of that route. Under the circumstances, we are unable to conclude that the arbitrator “gave a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute and, in effect, made a new contract for the parties” (see Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson], 8 NY2d 377, 383 [I960]). Nor is there anything in this award or the agreement from which to conclude that enforcement of the award would violate public policy (Matter of Etkin & Co. [Play It Again Apparel], 235 AD2d 264 [1997]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 157, 767 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-bevtek-corp-mr-natural-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack