In re the Arbitration between Cross Properties, Inc. & Gimbel Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Cross Properties, Inc. & Gimbel Bros.

15 A.D.2d 908, 225 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10761

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 15 A.D.2d 908 (In re the Arbitration between Cross Properties, Inc. & Gimbel Bros.) 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 Cross Properties, Inc. & Gimbel Bros., 15 A.D.2d 908, 225 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

We find the amount awarded to the Referee for the services rendered by him to be excessive. We conclude that $25,000 would be fair compensation. We also conclude that the cost of the reference should be borne equally by the parties. While we have held in the companion appeal that the circumstances do not warrant setting the award aside, there was sufficient presented to justify the ordering of the reference. If the charges were merely frivolous or sham then the appellant should be charged with the total expense. However, the evidence adduced at the reference indicates that the objections did have substance and, although not sufficient to set the award aside, were of sufficient gravity to make an equal division of the cost of the reference more in conformity with the interests of justice. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.; Valente, J., concurs in the following memorandum: I concur in result. Since I have dissented from the decision of the court to affirm confirmation of the award, I cannot agree that, although the objections to the award had substance, they were not sufficient to set aside the award. Nevertheless, under the circumstances of this case, I believe it to be equitable that the expense of the reference be borne equally by both sides. Settle order on notice.

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

We find the amount awarded to the Referee for the services rendered by him to be excessive. We conclude that $25,000 would be fair compensation. We also conclude that the cost of the reference should be borne equally by the parties. While we have held in the companion appeal that the circumstances do not warrant setting the award aside, there was sufficient presented to justify the ordering of the reference. If the charges were merely frivolous or sham then the appellant should be charged with the total expense. However, the evidence adduced at the reference indicates that the objections did have substance and, although not sufficient to set the award aside, were of sufficient gravity to make an equal division of the cost of the reference more in conformity with the interests of justice. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.; Valente, J., concurs in the following memorandum: I concur in result. Since I have dissented from the decision of the court to affirm confirmation of the award, I cannot agree that, although the objections to the award had substance, they were not sufficient to set aside the award. Nevertheless, under the circumstances of this case, I believe it to be equitable that the expense of the reference be borne equally by both sides. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 908, 225 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-cross-properties-inc-gimbel-bros-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack