New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Pinckney

303 A.D.2d 757, 756 N.Y.S.2d 869
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 31, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 757 (New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Pinckney) 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
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Pinckney, 303 A.D.2d 757, 756 N.Y.S.2d 869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7510 to confirm an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated July 23, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the respondent’s motion to confirm the award, as amended, and denied its cross motion pursuant to [758]*758CPLR 7511 to vacate the award, as amended, and, in effect, to reinstate the original award.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion to confirm is denied, and the cross motion to vacate the award, as amended, and, in effect, to reinstate the original award is granted.

The respondent was awarded $40,000 in an underinsured motorist arbitration held on March 5, 2002. In response to a subsequent letter from the respondent’s attorney, the arbitrator amended the initial award by awarding the respondent $65,000.

The record provides no support for the respondent’s contention that there was a miscalculation of figures in the arbitrator’s award, and there is no other valid basis for amending the award (see CPLR 7511 [c] [1]; Levy v Spanier, 155 AD2d 517 [1989]). Therefore, the arbitrator should not have amended the initial award.

The record further indicates that the petitioner was not afforded its due process right to be heard with regard to the respondent’s request for modification (see CPLR 7509).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in confirming the award, as amended. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority v. Transport Workers Union of America
67 A.D.3d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Scher Law Firm v. 87-10 51st Avenue Owners Corp.
52 A.D.3d 611 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
303 A.D.2d 757, 756 N.Y.S.2d 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-central-mutual-fire-insurance-v-pinckney-nyappdiv-2003.