In re the Arbitration between Dreyfus Service Corp. & Kent

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Dreyfus Service Corp. & Kent

183 A.D.2d 446, 584 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6803

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

DecidedMay 12, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 446 (In re the Arbitration between Dreyfus Service Corp. & Kent) 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 Dreyfus Service Corp. & Kent, 183 A.D.2d 446, 584 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered October 30, 1990 which granted petitioner’s application to modify an arbitration award insofar as it awarded punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

Respondent sets forth no compelling reason for this court to depart from the long-standing rule in this State that "[a]n arbitrator has no power to award punitive damages, even if agreed upon by the parties [citation omitted].” (Garrity v Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 NY2d 354, 356.) While Federal distrust of arbitration in the area of securities law has substantially eroded (see, Shearson/American Express v McMahon, 482 US 220), and the Federal Arbitration Act (9 USC § 1 et seq.) has [447]*447placed arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts (id.), such agreements nevertheless remain subject in New York to the overriding public policy against an award of punitive damages by an arbitrator. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered October 30, 1990 which granted petitioner’s application to modify an arbitration award insofar as it awarded punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

Respondent sets forth no compelling reason for this court to depart from the long-standing rule in this State that "[a]n arbitrator has no power to award punitive damages, even if agreed upon by the parties [citation omitted].” (Garrity v Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 NY2d 354, 356.) While Federal distrust of arbitration in the area of securities law has substantially eroded (see, Shearson/American Express v McMahon, 482 US 220), and the Federal Arbitration Act (9 USC § 1 et seq.) has [447]*447placed arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts (id.), such agreements nevertheless remain subject in New York to the overriding public policy against an award of punitive damages by an arbitrator. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 446, 584 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-dreyfus-service-corp-kent-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack