In re the Arbitration between Decicco & Viviano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Decicco & Viviano

32 A.D.2d 541, 299 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4242

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

DecidedApril 14, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 541 (In re the Arbitration between Decicco & Viviano) 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 Decicco & Viviano, 32 A.D.2d 541, 299 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to vacate an arbitration award, petitioner appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 15, 1968, which denied the application and confirmed the award; and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered July 11, 1968, on said award. Order and judgment affirmed, with one bill of $20 costs and disbursements. We find no merit in petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator exceeded his power and failed to follow the procedure of CPLR article 75, within the meaning of CPLR 7511 (subd. [b], par. 1, els. [iii], [iv]), by receiving in evidence testimony concerning alleged changes and modifications in the contract between the parties, after respondent’s motion to stay arbitration had been denied by the court. Petitioner’s claim in the arbitration proceeding was for damages for breach of contract; the nature of that contract was a proper question for consideration by the arbitrator; and his award in respondent’s favor may not be set aside for mere errors of judgment, either as to the law or the facts (cf. Matter of Wilkins, 169 N. Y. 494, 496-497; Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson], 8 N Y 2d 377, 383; Matter of Exercycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 N Y 2d 329, 334, 336; Korein v. Rabin, 29 A D 2d 351). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to vacate an arbitration award, petitioner appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 15, 1968, which denied the application and confirmed the award; and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered July 11, 1968, on said award. Order and judgment affirmed, with one bill of $20 costs and disbursements. We find no merit in petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator exceeded his power and failed to follow the procedure of CPLR article 75, within the meaning of CPLR 7511 (subd. [b], par. 1, els. [iii], [iv]), by receiving in evidence testimony concerning alleged changes and modifications in the contract between the parties, after respondent’s motion to stay arbitration had been denied by the court. Petitioner’s claim in the arbitration proceeding was for damages for breach of contract; the nature of that contract was a proper question for consideration by the arbitrator; and his award in respondent’s favor may not be set aside for mere errors of judgment, either as to the law or the facts (cf. Matter of Wilkins, 169 N. Y. 494, 496-497; Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson], 8 N Y 2d 377, 383; Matter of Exercycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 N Y 2d 329, 334, 336; Korein v. Rabin, 29 A D 2d 351). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 541, 299 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-decicco-viviano-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack