Kleinman v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kleinman v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc.

192 A.D.2d 512, 596 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3447

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

DecidedApril 5, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 512 (Kleinman v. Drexel Burnham Lambert 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

Kleinman v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., 192 A.D.2d 512, 596 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of a fiduciary duty, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated January 17, 1991, which granted the defendants’ motion to confirm an arbitration award and to dismiss the complaint and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion to vacate the award.

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

It is well settled that an arbitration award will not be vacated unless it is violative of a strong public policy, is totally irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically-enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power (see, Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.], 70 NY2d 907, 909; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308). The plaintiffs contend that the arbitrators erred in failing to apply a regulation. However, errors of law or fact are insufficient to set aside an award (see, Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 629; Matter of Panton v Allstate Ins. Co., 173 AD2d 831). The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the arbitrators’ award was irrational or violative of strong public policy so as to require vacatur (see, Matter of Cortale v Schweitzer, 126 AD2d 723). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of a fiduciary duty, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated January 17, 1991, which granted the defendants’ motion to confirm an arbitration award and to dismiss the complaint and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion to vacate the award.

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

It is well settled that an arbitration award will not be vacated unless it is violative of a strong public policy, is totally irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically-enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power (see, Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.], 70 NY2d 907, 909; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299, 308). The plaintiffs contend that the arbitrators erred in failing to apply a regulation. However, errors of law or fact are insufficient to set aside an award (see, Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 629; Matter of Panton v Allstate Ins. Co., 173 AD2d 831). The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the arbitrators’ award was irrational or violative of strong public policy so as to require vacatur (see, Matter of Cortale v Schweitzer, 126 AD2d 723). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 512, 596 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleinman-v-drexel-burnham-lambert-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack