Kalinich v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kalinich v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

208 A.D.2d 396, 618 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9492

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 396 (Kalinich v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.) 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

Kalinich v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 208 A.D.2d 396, 618 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 15, 1994, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied co-respondent’s motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to co-respondent’s contention, review of the record reveals that the arbitrators’ award referred to the total amount of damages suffered by the brokerage account held by petitioner and his wife. Further, the IAS Court properly found that the arbitrators did not exceed their authority in so doing. Moreover, there is no record support for co-respondent’s alternate claim that petitioner was impermissibly awarded punitive damages.

Lastly, since there was no modification of the award, vacatur on the grounds that the panel failed to subscribe a clarification letter to the parties is not warranted. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 15, 1994, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied co-respondent’s motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to co-respondent’s contention, review of the record reveals that the arbitrators’ award referred to the total amount of damages suffered by the brokerage account held by petitioner and his wife. Further, the IAS Court properly found that the arbitrators did not exceed their authority in so doing. Moreover, there is no record support for co-respondent’s alternate claim that petitioner was impermissibly awarded punitive damages.

Lastly, since there was no modification of the award, vacatur on the grounds that the panel failed to subscribe a clarification letter to the parties is not warranted. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 396, 618 N.Y.S.2d 205, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalinich-v-new-york-stock-exchange-inc-nyappdiv-1994.