Matter of Burke v. Sobral

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Burke v. Sobral

127 A.D.3d 416, 4 N.Y.S.3d 509

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

DecidedApril 2, 2015

Docket14712 650147/11

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 416 (Matter of Burke v. Sobral) 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

Matter of Burke v. Sobral, 127 A.D.3d 416, 4 N.Y.S.3d 509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, *417 Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered July 1, 2014, confirming the Arbitrator’s partial final award, dated August 6, 2013, and the final award, dated December 31, 2013, deemed an appeal from the judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 12, 2014, awarding petitioners Edmund and Suzanne D. Burke $2,003,290.33, and so considered, the judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to respondent’s claim, the arbitrator did not exceed his power (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]). The finding of liability was not “totally irrational” (Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Local Union No. 3, Intl. Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 117 AD3d 424 [1st Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 24 NY3d 916 [2015]), nor did it ignore the provisions of the parties’ operating agreement.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, *417 Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered July 1, 2014, confirming the Arbitrator’s partial final award, dated August 6, 2013, and the final award, dated December 31, 2013, deemed an appeal from the judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 12, 2014, awarding petitioners Edmund and Suzanne D. Burke $2,003,290.33, and so considered, the judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to respondent’s claim, the arbitrator did not exceed his power (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]). The finding of liability was not “totally irrational” (Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Local Union No. 3, Intl. Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 117 AD3d 424 [1st Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 24 NY3d 916 [2015]), nor did it ignore the provisions of the parties’ operating agreement.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 416, 4 N.Y.S.3d 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-burke-v-sobral-nyappdiv-2015.