Kalfus v. Kalfus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kalfus v. Kalfus

270 A.D.2d 41, 704 N.Y.S.2d 466, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2571

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 7, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered September 25, 1998, which denied defendant’s application to vacate and set aside the April 27, 1998 arbitrator’s award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s claim in support of his application to vacate the subject arbitration award, that there was actual bias on the part of the arbitrator, was properly rejected by the IAS Court since it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence [42]*42(CPLR 7511 [b]; Matter of Kessler Motor Cars v Ferrari N. Am., 245 AD2d 211). The comment allegedly made by the arbitrator during the arbitration proceeding was not biased. Defendant’s remaining claims, to the effect that the arbitrator committed errors of fact and law, are beyond our power of review (see, Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 629). Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered September 25, 1998, which denied defendant’s application to vacate and set aside the April 27, 1998 arbitrator’s award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s claim in support of his application to vacate the subject arbitration award, that there was actual bias on the part of the arbitrator, was properly rejected by the IAS Court since it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence [42]*42(CPLR 7511 [b]; Matter of Kessler Motor Cars v Ferrari N. Am., 245 AD2d 211). The comment allegedly made by the arbitrator during the arbitration proceeding was not biased. Defendant’s remaining claims, to the effect that the arbitrator committed errors of fact and law, are beyond our power of review (see, Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 629). Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Kalfus v. Kalfus, 270 A.D.2d 41, 704 N.Y.S.2d 466, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

270 A.D.2d 41 (Kalfus v. Kalfus) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related