Outback Steakhouse, Inc. v. Contracting Management, Inc.

58 A.D.3d 855, 873 N.Y.S.2d 120
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 27, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 855 (Outback Steakhouse, Inc. v. Contracting Management, Inc.) 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
Outback Steakhouse, Inc. v. Contracting Management, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 855, 873 N.Y.S.2d 120 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award dated June 6, 2007, as modified July 16, 2007, Contracting Management, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated January 10, 2008, which, inter alia, granted the petition to the extent of confirming the award, as modified, except insofar as it awarded certain reimbursement to Outback Steakhouse, Inc., and, in effect, denied its cross petition to vacate the award, as modified.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition to confirm the award, as modified, is denied, the cross petition to vacate the award, as modified, is granted, and the arbitration award, as modified, is vacated.

We agree with Contracting Management, Inc., that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in modifying the original arbitration award by rendering wholly new determinations on matters not addressed in the original award, which went beyond correcting a miscalculation or mistake, correcting an award upon a matter not submitted to him without affecting the merits of the decision, or correcting a matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy (see CPLR 7509, 7511 [c]). Thus, the award, as modified, must be vacated (see Matter of Herman v Cupero, 12 AD3d 674 [2004]; Cavallaro v Allstate Ins. Co., 124 AD2d 625 [1986]).

Moreover, to the extent the award, as modified, “reaffirmed” provisions of the original award, those provisions also must be vacated on the ground that the arbitrator so imperfectly executed his power in making that award that a final and definite award on the subject matter submitted was not made (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]; Matter of Herman v Cupero, 12 AD3d at 675; Matter of Wolff & Munier [Diesel Constr. Co.], 41 AD2d 618 [1973], affd after remand 36 NY2d 750 [1975]). Rivera, J.E, Santucci, Garni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of County of Nassau v. Nassau County Sheriff's Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc.
183 N.Y.S.3d 504 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Pinkesz v. Wertzberger
139 A.D.3d 1071 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Board of Educ. of the City Sch, Dist. of the City of New York (DOE) v. United Fedn. of Teachers
137 A.D.3d 484 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Davis v. Davis
133 A.D.3d 700 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
In Re the Arbitration Between Delaney Group, Inc. & Holmgren Enterprises, Inc.
126 A.D.3d 1212 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Nassau Health Care Corp. v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n
83 A.D.3d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Outback Steakhouse, Inc. v. Contracting Management, Inc.
77 A.D.3d 757 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 A.D.3d 855, 873 N.Y.S.2d 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/outback-steakhouse-inc-v-contracting-management-inc-nyappdiv-2009.