Retina Associates of L.I., P.C. v. Rosberger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Retina Associates of L.I., P.C. v. Rosberger

45 A.D.3d 690, 844 N.Y.S.2d 885

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 690 (Retina Associates of L.I., P.C. v. Rosberger) 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

Retina Associates of L.I., P.C. v. Rosberger, 45 A.D.3d 690, 844 N.Y.S.2d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75, inter alia, to stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.) dated August 8, 2006, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 2, 2006, upon renewal, denying its motion to vacate an arbitration award in favor of the respondent Daniel Rosberger, and granting that respondent’s cross motion to confirm the arbitration award, confirmed the arbitration award.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant failed to establish that there is any basis to vacate the arbitration award. Specifically, we are not persuaded that the arbitrator exhibited bias or the appearance of bias, had a conflict of interest, committed misconduct, or exceeded his power (see CFLR 7511 [b]). Lifson, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75, inter alia, to stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.) dated August 8, 2006, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 2, 2006, upon renewal, denying its motion to vacate an arbitration award in favor of the respondent Daniel Rosberger, and granting that respondent’s cross motion to confirm the arbitration award, confirmed the arbitration award.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant failed to establish that there is any basis to vacate the arbitration award. Specifically, we are not persuaded that the arbitrator exhibited bias or the appearance of bias, had a conflict of interest, committed misconduct, or exceeded his power (see CFLR 7511 [b]). Lifson, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 690, 844 N.Y.S.2d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/retina-associates-of-li-pc-v-rosberger-nyappdiv-2007.