In re the Arbitration between National Coverage Corp. & Kulesh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between National Coverage Corp. & Kulesh

202 A.D.2d 368, 610 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3047

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 368 (In re the Arbitration between National Coverage Corp. & Kulesh) 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 National Coverage Corp. & Kulesh, 202 A.D.2d 368, 610 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3047 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered August 25, 1993, which granted petitioner employer’s application to confirm an arbitration award, and denied respondent employee’s cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitrator did not exceed his authority, as limited by a provision of the arbitration clause forbidding him from modifying the parties’ contract, in ordering termination of the contract on the ground of respondent’s misconduct, although the contract was silent on the subject of termination for cause. Such a limitation in a broad arbitration clause does not prevent the arbitrator from fashioning a just remedy not provided for in the contract (see, Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.], 70 NY2d 907). We have reviewed respondent’s remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered August 25, 1993, which granted petitioner employer’s application to confirm an arbitration award, and denied respondent employee’s cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitrator did not exceed his authority, as limited by a provision of the arbitration clause forbidding him from modifying the parties’ contract, in ordering termination of the contract on the ground of respondent’s misconduct, although the contract was silent on the subject of termination for cause. Such a limitation in a broad arbitration clause does not prevent the arbitrator from fashioning a just remedy not provided for in the contract (see, Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.], 70 NY2d 907). We have reviewed respondent’s remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 368, 610 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-national-coverage-corp-kulesh-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack