Kapchan v. Fahnestock & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kapchan v. Fahnestock & Co.

306 A.D.2d 41, 759 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6351

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

DecidedJune 5, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 41 (Kapchan v. Fahnestock & Co.) 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

Kapchan v. Fahnestock & Co., 306 A.D.2d 41, 759 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered November 26, 2002, which denied petition[42]*42ers’ application to vacate an arbitration award denying their claim against respondents and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitrators’ refusal to permit petitioners to amend their claim was not an abuse of discretion amounting to misconduct within the meaning of CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (i) where petitioners discovered the new claim well before the stipulated deadline for making prehearing motions but did not seek such permission until after the deadline (cf. Matter of Bañas v Leumi Sec. Corp., 194 AD2d 390 [1993]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered November 26, 2002, which denied petition[42]*42ers’ application to vacate an arbitration award denying their claim against respondents and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitrators’ refusal to permit petitioners to amend their claim was not an abuse of discretion amounting to misconduct within the meaning of CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (i) where petitioners discovered the new claim well before the stipulated deadline for making prehearing motions but did not seek such permission until after the deadline (cf. Matter of Bañas v Leumi Sec. Corp., 194 AD2d 390 [1993]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 41, 759 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kapchan-v-fahnestock-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack