In re the Arbitration between Knickerbocker Textile Corp. & Leifer Manufacturing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Knickerbocker Textile Corp. & Leifer Manufacturing Corp.

278 A.D. 351, 105 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3810

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

DecidedJune 12, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 351 (In re the Arbitration between Knickerbocker Textile Corp. & Leifer Manufacturing Corp.) 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 Knickerbocker Textile Corp. & Leifer Manufacturing Corp., 278 A.D. 351, 105 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The unanimous award of three arbitrators has been set aside on the ground that one of the arbitrators was legally disqualified to serve. The arbitrator had previously been convicted for violation of the regulations of the Office of Price Administration and sentenced to fine and imprisonment. His offense was a misdemeanor and malum prohibitum only. Neither of the parties knew of the conviction, nor did the arbitrator volunteer to disclose it. The losing party first learned of it after the award by making inquiry of a commercial credit agency concerning the arbitrator. There is no proof that the fact of conviction would not have been disclosed, if such inquiry had been made prior to the arbitration.

There is no statutory requirement of previous good character for an arbitrator. If we apply the test applicable in this jurisdiction as to the qualifications of a juror (see Judiciary Law, § 596), the arbitrator’s criminal record in this case would not afford the basis for legal disqualification. Further, the rule as to a juror would require that objection to qualification must be raised before the person is sworn, at least when there is no claim of actual bias. In order to make an objection to a juror available after verdict, the objecting party must prove that it was unknown to him and would not have been disclosed upon proper inquiry (People v. Cosmo, 205 N. Y. 91, 101). A somewhat similar rule requiring timely objection has been applied to other disqualifications of an arbitrator (Matter of Newburger v. Rose, 228 App. Div. 526). We find no sufficient ground for setting aside the award.

Under all the circumstances, we think that the order appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the motion to confirm the award granted.

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

Per Curiam.

The unanimous award of three arbitrators has been set aside on the ground that one of the arbitrators was legally disqualified to serve. The arbitrator had previously been convicted for violation of the regulations of the Office of Price Administration and sentenced to fine and imprisonment. His offense was a misdemeanor and malum prohibitum only. Neither of the parties knew of the conviction, nor did the arbitrator volunteer to disclose it. The losing party first learned of it after the award by making inquiry of a commercial credit agency concerning the arbitrator. There is no proof that the fact of conviction would not have been disclosed, if such inquiry had been made prior to the arbitration.

There is no statutory requirement of previous good character for an arbitrator. If we apply the test applicable in this jurisdiction as to the qualifications of a juror (see Judiciary Law, § 596), the arbitrator’s criminal record in this case would not afford the basis for legal disqualification. Further, the rule as to a juror would require that objection to qualification must be raised before the person is sworn, at least when there is no claim of actual bias. In order to make an objection to a juror available after verdict, the objecting party must prove that it was unknown to him and would not have been disclosed upon proper inquiry (People v. Cosmo, 205 N. Y. 91, 101). A somewhat similar rule requiring timely objection has been applied to other disqualifications of an arbitrator (Matter of Newburger v. Rose, 228 App. Div. 526). We find no sufficient ground for setting aside the award.

Under all the circumstances, we think that the order appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and the motion to confirm the award granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 351, 105 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-knickerbocker-textile-corp-leifer-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack