Kaled Management Corp. v. Bevona

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaled Management Corp. v. Bevona

268 A.D.2d 589, 702 N.Y.S.2d 833, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 927

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 589 (Kaled Management Corp. v. Bevona) 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

Kaled Management Corp. v. Bevona, 268 A.D.2d 589, 702 N.Y.S.2d 833, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated August 29, 1996, the petitioner Kaled Management Corp. appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens [590]*590County (Kitzes, J.), dated August 24, 1998, which denied the petition and granted the cross application to confirm the award.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that an arbitration award “may not be vacated unless it is violative of a strong public policy, is totally irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator’s power” (Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.], 70 NY2d 907, 909; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308). The award here was not totally irrational, did not violate any public policy, and did not clearly exceed a specifically-enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and S. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated August 29, 1996, the petitioner Kaled Management Corp. appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens [590]*590County (Kitzes, J.), dated August 24, 1998, which denied the petition and granted the cross application to confirm the award.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that an arbitration award “may not be vacated unless it is violative of a strong public policy, is totally irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator’s power” (Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.], 70 NY2d 907, 909; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308). The award here was not totally irrational, did not violate any public policy, and did not clearly exceed a specifically-enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and S. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 589, 702 N.Y.S.2d 833, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaled-management-corp-v-bevona-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack