In re the Arbitration between Wagner Stott Clearing Corp. & J.A. Celentano Securities Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Wagner Stott Clearing Corp. & J.A. Celentano Securities Corp.

225 A.D.2d 367, 638 N.Y.2d 655, 638 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2213

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 367 (In re the Arbitration between Wagner Stott Clearing Corp. & J.A. Celentano Securities 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 Wagner Stott Clearing Corp. & J.A. Celentano Securities Corp., 225 A.D.2d 367, 638 N.Y.2d 655, 638 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appellants seek to vacate the unanimous award of a panel of three arbitrators based upon the failure of one of the arbitrators to disclose that his brother, an independent securities broker, transacted substantial business through a clearing house that was wholly owned by the petitioner’s parent company, Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith. Not all undisclosed relationships will result in disqualification or provide a basis to vacate an arbitration award for the appearance of bias or partiality (see, Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190, 201; Matter of Cross Props. [Gimbel Bros.], 15 AD2d 913, affd 12 NY2d 806). In this case, assuming arguendo, the arbitrator was aware of his brother’s business relationship with another subsidiary of petitioner’s parent organization, the relationship is too attenuated to raise even an inference or appearance of partiality. Under the circumstances, therefore, the failure of the arbitrator to disclose the relationship does not necessitate a vacatur of the award. We note appellants here utterly failed to demonstrate the existence of actual bias on the part of the arbitrator in question (see, Matter of Kornit [Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. School Dist.], 49 NY2d 842). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Appellants seek to vacate the unanimous award of a panel of three arbitrators based upon the failure of one of the arbitrators to disclose that his brother, an independent securities broker, transacted substantial business through a clearing house that was wholly owned by the petitioner’s parent company, Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith. Not all undisclosed relationships will result in disqualification or provide a basis to vacate an arbitration award for the appearance of bias or partiality (see, Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190, 201; Matter of Cross Props. [Gimbel Bros.], 15 AD2d 913, affd 12 NY2d 806). In this case, assuming arguendo, the arbitrator was aware of his brother’s business relationship with another subsidiary of petitioner’s parent organization, the relationship is too attenuated to raise even an inference or appearance of partiality. Under the circumstances, therefore, the failure of the arbitrator to disclose the relationship does not necessitate a vacatur of the award. We note appellants here utterly failed to demonstrate the existence of actual bias on the part of the arbitrator in question (see, Matter of Kornit [Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. School Dist.], 49 NY2d 842). Concur — Wallach, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 367, 638 N.Y.2d 655, 638 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-wagner-stott-clearing-corp-ja-celentano-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack