In re the Arbitration between Ververs & Schueller Co. & Emory Machine & Tool Co.

190 A.D.2d 1079
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 5, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 1079 (In re the Arbitration between Ververs & Schueller Co. & Emory Machine & Tool 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 Ververs & Schueller Co. & Emory Machine & Tool Co., 190 A.D.2d 1079 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, petition granted and award confirmed. Memorandum: After an arbitration proceeding, petitioner was awarded $19,804.30 plus interest. Petitioner petitioned for confirmation of that award, and respondents cross-petitioned to modify the award. Supreme Court concluded that there was an error in the award and referred the matter to the arbitrator for further consideration. Because respondents failed to establish a basis for modification of the award, Supreme Court should have confirmed the award (see, CPLR 7510).

Respondents sought modification on two grounds, neither of which applies here. Respondents argued that the award was the result of a miscalculation by the arbitrator in adding the same figures twice because they were contained in two exhibits (see, CPLR 7511 [c] [1]). Respondents, however, were challenging the figures the arbitrator chose to use in the exercise of his judgment, not his computation. Thus, respondents were not entitled to modification pursuant to CPLR 7511 (c) (1) (see, Matter of White Fashions [Susquehanna Mills], 295 NY 450, 456; Matter of City of Troy [Village of Menands], 48 AD2d 733, 734). With respect to respondents’ application for modification pursuant to CPLR 7511 (c) (3), their challenge to the amount of the award was an attack on its substance rather than on its form and, thus, a modification is not authorized by CPLR 7511 (c) (3) (see, Seafarer Fiberglass Yachts v Chelius, 112 AD2d 412, 414-415). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J. — Arbitration.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

Daly v. Lehman Bros.
252 A.D.2d 357 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Arbitration between Brown & State Farm Insurance
251 A.D.2d 1059 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Arbitration between Sutton & Travelers Companies
207 A.D.2d 1033 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 A.D.2d 1079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-ververs-schueller-co-emory-machine-nyappdiv-1993.