Neiman v. Springer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Neiman v. Springer

71 A.D.2d 854, 419 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13109

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

DecidedAugust 6, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 71 A.D.2d 854 (Neiman v. Springer) 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

Neiman v. Springer, 71 A.D.2d 854, 419 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 22, 1979, which granted petitioners’ application and denied appellants’ cross motion to vacate the award. Proceeding remitted to Special Term to hear and report, with findings of fact, on the issue of whether there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrators and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The refusal to hear pertinent and material evidence is misconduct justifying vacatur of the arbitration award (see CPLR 7511, subd [b], par 1, cl [i]; Matter of Professional Staff Congress/City Univ. of N. Y. v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N. Y., 39 NY2d 319, 323). In the instant case the arbitrators allegedly refused to hear evidence as a result of their finding that the parties had settled the issues to which the proffered evidence pertained. The issue of misconduct therefore turns on whether the arbitrators arbitrarily found that a settlement had been reached. (See Gervant v New England Fire Ins. Co., 306 NY 393, 398-400.) However, the record is insufficient to make a determination in that respect. Accordingly, a hearing is required (cf. Isais v Fischoff, 37 AD2d 702). Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Margett and Mangano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 22, 1979, which granted petitioners’ application and denied appellants’ cross motion to vacate the award. Proceeding remitted to Special Term to hear and report, with findings of fact, on the issue of whether there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrators and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The refusal to hear pertinent and material evidence is misconduct justifying vacatur of the arbitration award (see CPLR 7511, subd [b], par 1, cl [i]; Matter of Professional Staff Congress/City Univ. of N. Y. v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N. Y., 39 NY2d 319, 323). In the instant case the arbitrators allegedly refused to hear evidence as a result of their finding that the parties had settled the issues to which the proffered evidence pertained. The issue of misconduct therefore turns on whether the arbitrators arbitrarily found that a settlement had been reached. (See Gervant v New England Fire Ins. Co., 306 NY 393, 398-400.) However, the record is insufficient to make a determination in that respect. Accordingly, a hearing is required (cf. Isais v Fischoff, 37 AD2d 702). Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Margett and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 854, 419 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neiman-v-springer-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack