In re the Arbitration between Fischer & Queens Telephone Secretary, Inc.

106 A.D.2d 314, 482 N.Y.S.2d 761, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21374
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 18, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 106 A.D.2d 314 (In re the Arbitration between Fischer & Queens Telephone Secretary, 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 Fischer & Queens Telephone Secretary, Inc., 106 A.D.2d 314, 482 N.Y.S.2d 761, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinions

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, (M. Evans, J.), entered May 6,1983, confirming arbitration award, is reversed, on the law, with costs and disbursements, and the application to confirm the award is denied, and the cross motion to vacate the award is granted, and the matter remanded for de novo submission to another arbitrator.

At the time of the rendition of the award there were pending unresolved disputes between the arbitrator and the employers’ trade association, which was a named party to the arbitration and the representative of the employers in the arbitration. These disputes related to the arbitrator’s personal interests. They were disputes as to the amount of the arbitrator’s fees and the effective date of the proposed arbitrator’s resignation as impartial chairman, which the arbitrator indicated would be dependent in part on the payment of all moneys which the arbitrator claimed to be due to him from the association.

Such circumstances can fairly raise questions as to the misconduct or partiality of an arbitrator, by which appellants’ rights were prejudiced. (CPLR 7511, subd [b], par 1, cls [i], [ii]; see Matter of Franks [Penn-Uranium Corp.], 4 AD2d 39; Matter of Elia Bldg. Co. [County of Niagara], 8 AD2d 684; Morelite Constr. Corp. v New York City Dist. Council Carpenters Benefit Funds, 748 F2d 79.) Concur — Sandler, J. P., Silverman and Fein, JJ.

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

Related

57th & 6th Ground LLC v. Carnegie House Tenants Corp.
2026 NY Slip Op 50003(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Saldana v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
39 A.D.3d 416 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Lefkovitz v. Wagner
291 F. Supp. 2d 764 (N.D. Illinois, 2003)
Uniformed Firefighters Ass'n v. City of Long Beach
307 A.D.2d 365 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Shomron v. Fuks
286 A.D.2d 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Santana v. Country-Wide Insurance
177 Misc. 2d 1 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1998)
In re Arbitration between Kern & 303 East 57th Street Corp.
204 A.D.2d 152 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Kubarych v. Siegel
156 Misc. 2d 935 (New York Supreme Court, 1993)
In re the Arbitration between Catalyst Waste-to-Energy Corp. & City of Long Beach
164 A.D.2d 817 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 A.D.2d 314, 482 N.Y.S.2d 761, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-fischer-queens-telephone-secretary-inc-nyappdiv-1984.