Purpura v. Bear Stearns Companies

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Purpura v. Bear Stearns Companies

238 A.D.2d 216, 656 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3898

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

DecidedApril 17, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 216 (Purpura v. Bear Stearns Companies) 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

Purpura v. Bear Stearns Companies, 238 A.D.2d 216, 656 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered April 24, 1996, which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate an arbitration award insofar as it denied his claims on the merits and to remand the matter to the arbitrators for a statement of when the Statute of Limitations expired insofar as the award denied plaintiffs- claims as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

That the arbitrators did not explain their calculation of the Statute of Limitations, or why plaintiff’s claims lack merit, does not mean that the award was not final and definite within the meaning of CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) or imperfect in a matter of form within the meaning of CPLR 7511 (c) (3). The award was properly confirmed because it determined the controversy submitted and does not create a new controversy (see, Matter of Meisels v Uhr, 79 NY2d 526, 536), and the clarity of the arbitrators’ reasoning process is simply not a matter of concern (Matter of Guetta [Raxon Fabrics Corp.], 123 AD2d 40, 44-45; Matter of Bay Ridge Med. Group v Health Ins. Plan, 22 AD2d 807). We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered April 24, 1996, which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate an arbitration award insofar as it denied his claims on the merits and to remand the matter to the arbitrators for a statement of when the Statute of Limitations expired insofar as the award denied plaintiffs- claims as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

That the arbitrators did not explain their calculation of the Statute of Limitations, or why plaintiff’s claims lack merit, does not mean that the award was not final and definite within the meaning of CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) or imperfect in a matter of form within the meaning of CPLR 7511 (c) (3). The award was properly confirmed because it determined the controversy submitted and does not create a new controversy (see, Matter of Meisels v Uhr, 79 NY2d 526, 536), and the clarity of the arbitrators’ reasoning process is simply not a matter of concern (Matter of Guetta [Raxon Fabrics Corp.], 123 AD2d 40, 44-45; Matter of Bay Ridge Med. Group v Health Ins. Plan, 22 AD2d 807). We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 216, 656 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purpura-v-bear-stearns-companies-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack