Matter of D'Ropshitz v. Schwartz

131 A.D.3d 1056, 16 N.Y.S.3d 471
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 16, 2015
Docket2014-07589
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 1056 (Matter of D'Ropshitz v. Schwartz) 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 D'Ropshitz v. Schwartz, 131 A.D.3d 1056, 16 N.Y.S.3d 471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award dated July 2, 2013, Joseph Aryeh Schwartz and Rosie Schwartz, also known as Rosa Schwartz, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated June 24, 2014, which, inter alia, confirmed the award in part.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*1057 The appellants contend that after issuing an arbitration award dated August 20, 2012, the subject arbitration panel did not have jurisdiction to issue an arbitration award dated July 2, 2013. However, by alerting the arbitration panel that the August 20, 2012, award had left an issue unresolved, and subsequently meeting with the panel and suggesting that the panel members visit the subject site so that they might have a better understanding of the issue, the appellants participated in the proceedings which led to the July 2, 2013, award and, thereby, waived any argument that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority or was without jurisdiction (see Binghamton Civ. Serv. Forum v City of Binghamton, 44 NY2d 23, 29 n [1978]; see also Stone v Noble Constr. Mgt., Inc., 116 AD3d 838, 839 [2014]; cf. Matter of New York State Dept. of Corr. Servs. [New York State Corr. Officers & Police Benevolent Assn., Inc.], 100 AD3d 1066, 1068 [2012]).

The appellants’ contention that the petitioner did not timely seek confirmation of the award is without merit (see Matter of Track Artist Mgt. v Quigley, 309 AD2d 680 [2003]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Subway Surface Supervisors Assn. v. New York City Tr. Auth.
2017 NY Slip Op 6444 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 A.D.3d 1056, 16 N.Y.S.3d 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-dropshitz-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-2015.