McIver-Morgan, Inc. v. Dal Piaz

New York Court of Appeals

McIver-Morgan, Inc. v. Dal Piaz

5 N.E.3d 586, 22 N.Y.3d 1104

New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 18, 2014·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary. The Appellate Division correctly determined that vacatur of the arbitration award would require an impermissible fact-intensive review by the courts.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Abdus-Salaam. Taking no part: Judge Rivera.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary. The Appellate Division correctly determined that vacatur of the arbitration award would require an impermissible fact-intensive review by the courts.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Abdus-Salaam. Taking no part: Judge Rivera.

McIver-Morgan, Inc. v. Dal Piaz, 5 N.E.3d 586, 22 N.Y.3d 1104 (N.Y. 2014).

Pincite

5 N.E.3d 586 (McIver-Morgan, Inc. v. Dal Piaz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related