Sari M. Friedman, P.C. v. Gleeson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sari M. Friedman, P.C. v. Gleeson

300 A.D.2d 404, 751 N.Y.S.2d 859

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 404 (Sari M. Friedman, P.C. v. Gleeson) 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

Sari M. Friedman, P.C. v. Gleeson, 300 A.D.2d 404, 751 N.Y.S.2d 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an award of an arbitration board, dated September 13, 2000, which directed the petitioner to return $4,000 in attorney’s fees to the respondent James Gleeson, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated October 1, 2001, which, inter alia, denied the petition, confirmed the award, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

An arbitration award in a mandatory arbitration proceeding, such as this one, will be upheld if it is supported by the evidence and is not “arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 223). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the arbitration panel’s determination was amply supported by the evidence in the record, and was not “arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., supra). Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an award of an arbitration board, dated September 13, 2000, which directed the petitioner to return $4,000 in attorney’s fees to the respondent James Gleeson, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated October 1, 2001, which, inter alia, denied the petition, confirmed the award, and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

An arbitration award in a mandatory arbitration proceeding, such as this one, will be upheld if it is supported by the evidence and is not “arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 223). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the arbitration panel’s determination was amply supported by the evidence in the record, and was not “arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., supra). Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 404, 751 N.Y.S.2d 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sari-m-friedman-pc-v-gleeson-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack