Ploen v. Monticello Central School District

160 A.D.2d 879, 554 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4489
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 16, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 160 A.D.2d 879 (Ploen v. Monticello Central School District) 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
Ploen v. Monticello Central School District, 160 A.D.2d 879, 554 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated February 10, 1989, which denied the application and confirmed the award.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner contends that the arbitrator exceeded his power. The arbitration clause provided: "The jurisdiction and power of the arbitrator arise only from this Agreement. His jurisdiction shall only be to interpret the specific clauses of this Agreement”.

A determination by an arbitrator who has the power to interpret the contract will only be set aside if it is " 'completely irrational’ * * * 'or where the document expressly limits or is construed to limit the powers of the

[880]*880arbitrators, hence, narrowing the scope of arbitration’ ” (Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn., 41 NY2d 578, 582, quoting Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson], 8 NY2d 377, 383; and Lentine v Fundaro, 29 NY2d 382, 385). Because the arbitration clause contained no express or implied limitation upon the remedial power of the arbitrator and the award had a rational basis, it cannot be said the arbitrator exceeded his power in issuing the instant award (see, Matter of Board of Educ. v Dover-Wingdale Teachers’ Assn., 61 NY2d 913).

Moreover, we find the petitioner’s assertion that the award was violative of public policy to be without merit. Rubin, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re the Arbitration between State & United University Professions
187 A.D.2d 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
CBA Industries, Inc. v. Circulation Management, Inc.
179 A.D.2d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Rudolph's Women's Apparel of Mt. Kisco, Inc. v. Chiappinelli
167 A.D.2d 379 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 A.D.2d 879, 554 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ploen-v-monticello-central-school-district-nyappdiv-1990.