Loafin' Tree Restaurant, Inc. v. Pardi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loafin' Tree Restaurant, Inc. v. Pardi

162 A.D.2d 985, 559 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9730

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

DecidedJune 22, 1990

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 985 (Loafin' Tree Restaurant, Inc. v. Pardi) 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

Loafin' Tree Restaurant, Inc. v. Pardi, 162 A.D.2d 985, 559 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed with costs. All concur, Pine, J., not participating. Memorandum: The arbitrator’s failure, during the course of a hearing, to disclose the nature of his relationship with relatives of counsel for the defendant was sufficient to demonstrate the appearance of partiality. Thus, Supreme Court correctly determined that the arbitration award should be vacated (see, Matter of Stevens & Co. [Rytex Corp.], 34 NY2d 123; Matter of Colony Liq. Distribs. [Local 669], 34 AD2d 1060, affd 28 NY2d 596). The "new evidence” submitted by plaintiff on its motion to renew or reargue did not materially change the factual basis for the court’s initial determination, and thus, adherence to the original determination was proper. (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court, Wisner, J.—renewal.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order affirmed with costs. All concur, Pine, J., not participating. Memorandum: The arbitrator’s failure, during the course of a hearing, to disclose the nature of his relationship with relatives of counsel for the defendant was sufficient to demonstrate the appearance of partiality. Thus, Supreme Court correctly determined that the arbitration award should be vacated (see, Matter of Stevens & Co. [Rytex Corp.], 34 NY2d 123; Matter of Colony Liq. Distribs. [Local 669], 34 AD2d 1060, affd 28 NY2d 596). The "new evidence” submitted by plaintiff on its motion to renew or reargue did not materially change the factual basis for the court’s initial determination, and thus, adherence to the original determination was proper. (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court, Wisner, J.—renewal.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 985, 559 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loafin-tree-restaurant-inc-v-pardi-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack