In re the Arbitration between DeNicola & Polcini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between DeNicola & Polcini

2 A.D.2d 675, 152 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4832

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

DecidedJune 26, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 675 (In re the Arbitration between DeNicola & Polcini) 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 DeNicola & Polcini, 2 A.D.2d 675, 152 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

We agree with Special Term that an indiscretion on the part of appellant’s counsel led to injudicious conduct on the part of the arbitrator. We find no showing, however, of partiality on the part of the arbitrator. The conclusion is inescapable on this record that the application to remove the arbitrator was not dictated by any conviction on the part of respondents that the arbitrator was partial, but rather by their concern over developments in the case. It is unfortunate that the proceeding has taken the course it has taken, but we still assume that all the arbitrators can discharge their duties with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 cost and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied. Concur — Peek, P. J., Breitel, Frank and Valente, JJ.

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

We agree with Special Term that an indiscretion on the part of appellant’s counsel led to injudicious conduct on the part of the arbitrator. We find no showing, however, of partiality on the part of the arbitrator. The conclusion is inescapable on this record that the application to remove the arbitrator was not dictated by any conviction on the part of respondents that the arbitrator was partial, but rather by their concern over developments in the case. It is unfortunate that the proceeding has taken the course it has taken, but we still assume that all the arbitrators can discharge their duties with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. Order unanimously reversed, with $20 cost and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied. Concur — Peek, P. J., Breitel, Frank and Valente, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 675, 152 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-denicola-polcini-nyappdiv-1956.