Matter of Duraku v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Duraku v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P.

133 A.D.3d 525, 19 N.Y.S.3d 168

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 19, 2015·No. 16193 653545/13·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered June 3, 2014, which denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award, dated July 15, 2013, denying petitioner’s claims of, inter alia, sexual discrimination against respondent Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The arbitral award is not violative of public policy, irrational, or the product of partiality or bias (see CPLR 7511 [b]; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers’ Union of Am,., Local 100, AFL-CIO, 6 NY3d 332, 336 [2005]). Petitioner’s argument is based on the arbitrator’s factual findings, which are “largely unreviewable” (see Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530, 534 [2010]). Petitioner failed to identify any evidence of partiality or bias on the part of the arbitrator (see Kalfus v Kalfus, 270 AD2d 41 [1st Dept 2000]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Andrias and Moskowitz, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 31450OJ).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered June 3, 2014, which denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award, dated July 15, 2013, denying petitioner’s claims of, inter alia, sexual discrimination against respondent Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The arbitral award is not violative of public policy, irrational, or the product of partiality or bias (see CPLR 7511 [b]; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers’ Union of Am,., Local 100, AFL-CIO, 6 NY3d 332, 336 [2005]). Petitioner’s argument is based on the arbitrator’s factual findings, which are “largely unreviewable” (see Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530, 534 [2010]). Petitioner failed to identify any evidence of partiality or bias on the part of the arbitrator (see Kalfus v Kalfus, 270 AD2d 41 [1st Dept 2000]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Andrias and Moskowitz, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 31450OJ).]

Matter of Duraku v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P., 133 A.D.3d 525, 19 N.Y.S.3d 168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

133 A.D.3d 525 (Matter of Duraku v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related