In re the Arbitration between Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. & A. Webster Dougherty & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. & A. Webster Dougherty & Co.

198 A.D.2d 181, 604 N.Y.S.2d 78

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 181 (In re the Arbitration between Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. & A. Webster Dougherty & Co.) 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 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. & A. Webster Dougherty & Co., 198 A.D.2d 181, 604 N.Y.S.2d 78 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.), entered October 2, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, confirmed an arbitration award against respondent-appellant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitrators’ denial of appellant’s request to produce millions of pages of unspecified documents, later reduced, cannot be characterized as misconduct in the sense of refusing to hear pertinent and material evidence. The fraud sought to be proven by such documents was determined by the arbitrators not to be pertinent and material, and therefore the documentation sought would not have undermined petitioners’ right to recover even if it did exist. Thus, the arbitrators’ ruling was at most an unreviewable error of law and does not constitute misconduct. In any event, the arbitrators’ ruling did not deprive appellant of the opportunity to make its case on the issue of fraud. Although other respondents did put in0 their case before the arbitrators, appellant offered no witnesses, produced no documentation and failed to subpoena those witnesses it now claims to have pertinent evidence.

We have considered appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.), entered October 2, 1992, which, insofar as appealed from, confirmed an arbitration award against respondent-appellant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitrators’ denial of appellant’s request to produce millions of pages of unspecified documents, later reduced, cannot be characterized as misconduct in the sense of refusing to hear pertinent and material evidence. The fraud sought to be proven by such documents was determined by the arbitrators not to be pertinent and material, and therefore the documentation sought would not have undermined petitioners’ right to recover even if it did exist. Thus, the arbitrators’ ruling was at most an unreviewable error of law and does not constitute misconduct. In any event, the arbitrators’ ruling did not deprive appellant of the opportunity to make its case on the issue of fraud. Although other respondents did put in0 their case before the arbitrators, appellant offered no witnesses, produced no documentation and failed to subpoena those witnesses it now claims to have pertinent evidence.

We have considered appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 181, 604 N.Y.S.2d 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-merrill-lynch-pierce-fenner-smith-inc-nyappdiv-1993.