Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v. Solow Building Co.

279 A.D.2d 431, 720 N.Y.S.2d 69, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 880
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 30, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 431 (Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v. Solow Building Co.) 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
Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v. Solow Building Co., 279 A.D.2d 431, 720 N.Y.S.2d 69, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered June 2, 2000, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, denied petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, dated November 19, 1999, awarding petitioner $721,580, and granted respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The original arbitrator appointed on behalf of respondent, Robert Von Ancken, failed to reveal his close involvement with petitioner’s counsel on prior arbitrations and the fact that he was scheduled to testify against respondent in an unrelated matter. “[T]he failure of an arbitrator to disclose facts which reasonably may support an inference of bias is grounds to vacate the award under CPLR 7511” (Matter of J. P. Stevens & Co. [Rytex Corp.], 34 NY2d 123, 125; see also, Matter of Milliken Woolens [Weber Knit Sportswear], 11 AD2d 166, affd 9 NY2d 878). That Von Ancken ultimately resigned does not remove the taint to the process since he participated in choosing the “neutral” third arbitrator, who ultimately ruled against respondent and who was involved in a highly contentious relationship with respondent’s chosen arbitrator. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly vacated the arbitration award. “[I]t is imperative that the integrity of the process, as opposed to the correctness of the individual decision, be zealously safeguarded” (Matter of Coldfinger v Lisker, 68 NY2d 225, 231).

We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

Related

Nachmani v. By Design, LLC
74 A.D.3d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Schroder & Co. v. Block
22 A.D.3d 313 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Seligman v. Allstate Insurance
195 Misc. 2d 553 (New York Supreme Court, 2003)
In re the Arbitration between Solow Building Co. & Morgan Guaranty Trust Co.
294 A.D.2d 224 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
279 A.D.2d 431, 720 N.Y.S.2d 69, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-guaranty-trust-co-v-solow-building-co-nyappdiv-2001.