Royce Restaurant Corp. v. Misty Automatic Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Royce Restaurant Corp. v. Misty Automatic Industries, Inc.

123 A.D.2d 617

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 617 (Royce Restaurant Corp. v. Misty Automatic Industries, 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

Royce Restaurant Corp. v. Misty Automatic Industries, Inc., 123 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), entered November 19, 1984, which, inter alia, granted the respondent’s motion to consolidate the proceedings and confirm the award of the arbitrator, and denied the appellant’s cross application to set aside the award. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated February 5, 1985, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination (see, CPLR 5517 [b]).

Appeal from the order and judgment entered November 19, 1984 dismissed. That order and judgment was superseded by the order dated February 5, 1985, made upon reargument.

Order dated February 5, 1985 affirmed insofar as reviewed.

The respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Our review of the record indicates that the refusal of the arbitrator to adjourn the arbitration hearing at the request of the appellant was a proper exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Kool Air Sys. [Syosset Institutional Bldrs.], 22 AD2d 672), and did not prejudice the rights of the appellant (see, CPLR 7511 [b] [1]). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that the arbitrator’s award constituted an award of punitive damages. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.), entered November 19, 1984, which, inter alia, granted the respondent’s motion to consolidate the proceedings and confirm the award of the arbitrator, and denied the appellant’s cross application to set aside the award. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated February 5, 1985, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination (see, CPLR 5517 [b]).

Appeal from the order and judgment entered November 19, 1984 dismissed. That order and judgment was superseded by the order dated February 5, 1985, made upon reargument.

Order dated February 5, 1985 affirmed insofar as reviewed.

The respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Our review of the record indicates that the refusal of the arbitrator to adjourn the arbitration hearing at the request of the appellant was a proper exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Kool Air Sys. [Syosset Institutional Bldrs.], 22 AD2d 672), and did not prejudice the rights of the appellant (see, CPLR 7511 [b] [1]). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that the arbitrator’s award constituted an award of punitive damages. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royce-restaurant-corp-v-misty-automatic-industries-inc-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack