Home/New York Court of Appeals/In Re the Arbitration Between Furstenberg & Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

In Re the Arbitration Between Furstenberg & Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

403 N.E.2d 170, 49 N.Y.2d 757, 426 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2123
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 7, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by58 cases

This text of 403 N.E.2d 170 (In Re the Arbitration Between Furstenberg & Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals 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 Furstenberg & Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 403 N.E.2d 170, 49 N.Y.2d 757, 426 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2123 (N.Y. 1980).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court confirming the arbitration award reinstated.

Recognizing that Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. was obliged under the statute to accept the arbitral forum for the resolution of the claim against it, we agree that the standard for judicial review of the award is more exacting than in voluntary arbitration (cf. Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493). We conclude, however, that it was *759 error on the part of the Appellate Division to set this award aside.

It is not suggested that the award was not made in good faith or was without basis in the evidence submitted to the arbitrator. Nor is there any intimation of trespass of constitutional rights or violation of strong public policy. To the extent that it is pertinent it cannot be seriously contended that there was not a rational basis for the award or that the award was not otherwise grounded in reason. In these circumstances we are not prepared, in the disposition of this appeal, to hold as a matter of law that the award must be, set aside because it may be said that the Appellate Division in cases subsequently considered by it reached a different result with respect to the effectiveness of similarly defective notices of termination.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabbielli, Jones, Wachtleb, Fuchsbebg and Meyeb concur.

Order reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated in a memorandum.

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

Related

ENS Med., P.C. v. Nationwide Ins. Co.
2026 NY Slip Op 26033 (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2026)
Matter of Bench v. Brookhaven Heart, PLLC
2025 NY Slip Op 01626 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v. Scob, LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 33282(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v. Sono RX, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 32875(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Eclipse Medical Imaging, P.C.
E.D. New York, 2024
Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co.
2023 NY Slip Op 34547 (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2023)
Matter of Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. Country Wide Ins. Co.
2019 NY Slip Op 7061 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Miller v. Elrac, LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 1544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Progressive Advanced Ins. Co. v. New York City Tr. Auth.
2018 NY Slip Op 7432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Labunska
132 A.D.3d 861 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Tarantino v. MTA New York City Transit Authority
129 A.D.3d 738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Public Service Mutual Insurance v. Fiduciary Insurance Co. of America
123 A.D.3d 933 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Government Employees Insurance v. Five Boro Psychological Services, P.C.
939 F. Supp. 2d 208 (E.D. New York, 2013)
PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE COMPANY, MTR. OF
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
In re the Arbitration between Philadelphia Insurance & Utica National Insurance Group
97 A.D.3d 1153 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Excel Imaging, P.C.
879 F. Supp. 2d 243 (E.D. New York, 2012)
Gongora v. New York City Department of Education
34 Misc. 3d 161 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
In re the Arbitration between Utica Mutual Insurance & Selective Insurance of America
27 A.D.3d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Colon v. GEICO
18 A.D.3d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Spine Americare Medical, P.C.
294 A.D.2d 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
403 N.E.2d 170, 49 N.Y.2d 757, 426 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-furstenberg-aetna-casualty-surety-co-ny-1980.