Kunju v. MTA

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kunju v. MTA

94 A.D.3d 585, 942 N.Y.S.2d 350

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

DecidedApril 19, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 585 (Kunju v. MTA) 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

Kunju v. MTA, 94 A.D.3d 585, 942 N.Y.S.2d 350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2011, which denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s application to vacate the arbitration award was made more than 90 days after the award was delivered to him and is therefore untimely (see CPLR 7511 [a]; Werner Enters. Co. v New York City Law Dept., 281 AD2d 253 [2001]). In any event, while CPLR article 75 provides a mechanism by which a party may obtain judicial confirmation of an arbitration award, the failure to have an award confirmed is not a ground for vacating the award (see CPLR 7510; 7511 [b] [1]).

Petitioner now claims that he seeks vacatur under CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iv). This argument is unavailing as well as unpreserved, since subparagraph (iv) is “failure to follow the procedure of this article, unless the party applying to vacate the award continued with the arbitration with notice of the defect and without objection.” Petitioner participated in the arbitration without objection as to the procedure employed. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, Sweeny, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert E. Torres, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2011, which denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s application to vacate the arbitration award was made more than 90 days after the award was delivered to him and is therefore untimely (see CPLR 7511 [a]; Werner Enters. Co. v New York City Law Dept., 281 AD2d 253 [2001]). In any event, while CPLR article 75 provides a mechanism by which a party may obtain judicial confirmation of an arbitration award, the failure to have an award confirmed is not a ground for vacating the award (see CPLR 7510; 7511 [b] [1]).

Petitioner now claims that he seeks vacatur under CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iv). This argument is unavailing as well as unpreserved, since subparagraph (iv) is “failure to follow the procedure of this article, unless the party applying to vacate the award continued with the arbitration with notice of the defect and without objection.” Petitioner participated in the arbitration without objection as to the procedure employed. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, Sweeny, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 585, 942 N.Y.S.2d 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kunju-v-mta-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack