Matter of Vintage Flooring & Tile, Inc. v. DCM of NY, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Vintage Flooring & Tile, Inc. v. DCM of NY, LLC

123 A.D.3d 731, 995 N.Y.S.2d 916

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

DecidedDecember 3, 2014

Docket2013-09057

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 731 (Matter of Vintage Flooring & Tile, Inc. v. DCM of NY, LLC) 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 Vintage Flooring & Tile, Inc. v. DCM of NY, LLC, 123 A.D.3d 731, 995 N.Y.S.2d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, DCM of NY, LLC, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated July 11, 2013, which, upon an amended order of the same court dated April 2, 2013, inter alia, granting the petition and confirming the award, is in favor of the petitioner and against it in the principal sum of $86,889.88.

*732 Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Judicial review of an arbitrator’s award is extremely limited (see Matter of Town of Babylon v Carson, 111 AD3d 951, 953 [2013]). A court may vacate an arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) “only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” (Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530, 534 [2010]). An award is irrational when there is no proof whatever to justify the award (see Matter of Susan D. Settenbrino, P.C. v Barroga-Hayes, 89 AD3d 1094, 1095 [2011]).

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, it failed to show that the arbitration award was irrational. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to vacate the arbitration award, and properly granted the petition to confirm the arbitration award.

Chambers, J.P, Sgroi, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, DCM of NY, LLC, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated July 11, 2013, which, upon an amended order of the same court dated April 2, 2013, inter alia, granting the petition and confirming the award, is in favor of the petitioner and against it in the principal sum of $86,889.88.

*732 Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Judicial review of an arbitrator’s award is extremely limited (see Matter of Town of Babylon v Carson, 111 AD3d 951, 953 [2013]). A court may vacate an arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) “only if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” (Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530, 534 [2010]). An award is irrational when there is no proof whatever to justify the award (see Matter of Susan D. Settenbrino, P.C. v Barroga-Hayes, 89 AD3d 1094, 1095 [2011]).

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, it failed to show that the arbitration award was irrational. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to vacate the arbitration award, and properly granted the petition to confirm the arbitration award.

Chambers, J.P, Sgroi, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 731, 995 N.Y.S.2d 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-vintage-flooring-tile-inc-v-dcm-of-ny-llc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack