Rodman & Renshaw, LLC v. Murray

92 A.D.3d 550, 938 N.Y.2d 795

This text of 92 A.D.3d 550 (Rodman & Renshaw, LLC v. Murray) 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
Rodman & Renshaw, LLC v. Murray, 92 A.D.3d 550, 938 N.Y.2d 795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

[551]*551The arbitration award was not marked by manifest disregard of the law, as there was no showing that the arbitrators had ignored or refused to apply a governing legal principle that was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case (see Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 481 [2006]). Nor has respondent established that the award was irrational or violative of a strong public policy (see Kalyanaram v New York Inst. of Tech., 79 AD3d 418, 419 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 712 [2011]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Related

Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.
846 N.E.2d 1201 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 A.D.3d 550, 938 N.Y.2d 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodman-renshaw-llc-v-murray-nyappdiv-2012.