Sassower v. Greenspan, Kanarek, Jaffe & Funk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sassower v. Greenspan, Kanarek, Jaffe & Funk

121 A.D.2d 549, 504 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58526

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

DecidedJune 16, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 121 A.D.2d 549 (Sassower v. Greenspan, Kanarek, Jaffe & Funk) 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

Sassower v. Greenspan, Kanarek, Jaffe & Funk, 121 A.D.2d 549, 504 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7510 to confirm an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Slifkin, J.), dated May 7, 1985, which denied her motion and dismissed the petition as untimely.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner received actual delivery of the award of the arbitrator. Thus, assuming that CPLR 7507 requiring delivery of the award "personally or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested”, is applicable to the matter before us, the alleged error in delivering the award by ordinary mail does not, upon the facts presented, invalidate the delivery. Where, as here, actual delivery occurred, the failure to serve the award in the manner provided by CPLR 7507 does not toll the one-year limitations period set forth in CPLR 7510 (see, Matter of Local 964 v Giresi, 29 AD2d 768; Matter of Kozlowski v Seville Syndicate, 64 Misc 2d 109). The respondent’s submission of an affirmation in opposition by an attorney who was formerly a partner in the respondent firm and who is, therefore, a party to this proceeding, is of no probative value under the exacting language of CPLR 2106. However, while the contents thereof have had no bearing on our determination, we have deemed it as a vehicle for the transmission of the documentary evidence considered herein. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7510 to confirm an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Slifkin, J.), dated May 7, 1985, which denied her motion and dismissed the petition as untimely.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner received actual delivery of the award of the arbitrator. Thus, assuming that CPLR 7507 requiring delivery of the award "personally or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested”, is applicable to the matter before us, the alleged error in delivering the award by ordinary mail does not, upon the facts presented, invalidate the delivery. Where, as here, actual delivery occurred, the failure to serve the award in the manner provided by CPLR 7507 does not toll the one-year limitations period set forth in CPLR 7510 (see, Matter of Local 964 v Giresi, 29 AD2d 768; Matter of Kozlowski v Seville Syndicate, 64 Misc 2d 109). The respondent’s submission of an affirmation in opposition by an attorney who was formerly a partner in the respondent firm and who is, therefore, a party to this proceeding, is of no probative value under the exacting language of CPLR 2106. However, while the contents thereof have had no bearing on our determination, we have deemed it as a vehicle for the transmission of the documentary evidence considered herein. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 549, 504 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sassower-v-greenspan-kanarek-jaffe-funk-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack