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

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 41 (Kalfus v. Kalfus) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 41, 704 N.Y.S.2d 466, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalfus-v-kalfus-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack