Mikel v. Scharf

85 A.D.2d 604, 444 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16415
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 7, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 85 A.D.2d 604 (Mikel v. Scharf) 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
Mikel v. Scharf, 85 A.D.2d 604, 444 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16415 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award made by a religious tribunal, in which proceeding respondents cross-petitioned to vacate the award, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hirsch, J.), dated October 16, 1980, that denied the petition, granted the cross petition and vacated the award. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CPLR 7506 (subd [c]) provides, as here relevant, that the parties at an arbitration hearing are “entitled to be heard, to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses.” Furthermore, “[a] party has the right to be represented by an attorney * * * [and t]his right may not be waived” (CPLR 7506, subd [d]). Proper procedure was not followed by the religious tribunal which rendered the subject award and that failure is fatal to confirmation of the award (see CPLR 7511, subd [b], par 1, cl [iv]). The tribunal only permitted respondents’ attorney to address it after considerable pleading on the part of respondent Asher Scharf and, even then, the attorney was not permitted to introduce evidence or to cross-examine witnesses, despite his attempts to do so. Furthermore, when respondents were notified of a second meeting of the tribunal, they were expressly told not to bring their attorney. The tribunal could not preclude that representation nor deny respondents the right to present evidence and the right to cross-examine (see CPLR 7506). This failure to observe statutory procedure was prejudicial to the respondents. Accordingly, the award was properly vacated. We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur. [105 Misc 2d 548.]

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

Related

Matter of Ventillo v. County of Rockland Sheriff's Dept.
206 A.D.3d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
1414 Holdings, LLC v. BMS-PSO, LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 8261 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Siegel v. Landy
95 A.D.3d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Marracino v. Alexander
73 A.D.3d 22 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Rakoszynski v. Rakoszynski
174 Misc. 2d 509 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
Fein v. Fein
160 Misc. 2d 760 (New York Supreme Court, 1994)
Ainsworth v. Schoen
606 So. 2d 1275 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Nastasi v. Artenberg
130 A.D.2d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Sartiano v. Becker
119 A.D.2d 656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 A.D.2d 604, 444 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mikel-v-scharf-nyappdiv-1981.