Schwartz v. New York City Department of Education

22 A.D.3d 672, 802 N.Y.S.2d 726
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 17, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 672 (Schwartz v. New York City Department of Education) 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
Schwartz v. New York City Department of Education, 22 A.D.3d 672, 802 N.Y.S.2d 726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitrator’s award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fartnow, J.), dated February 13, 2003, which denied the petition and granted the cross motion to confirm the award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[673]*673Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the arbitrator did not exceed his power in purportedly drawing a negative inference from the petitioner’s refusal to testify at the hearing pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a. Indeed, the arbitrator’s award specifically indicated that, since the evidence in the record provided sufficient support of its findings and conclusions, it was not necessary to consider the matter of whether it was proper to consider the petitioner’s refusal to testify, in reaching its determination, other than to recognize that the absence of the petitioner’s testimony necessarily left unrebutted certain testimony adduced on behalf of the respondent.

The petitioner failed to present evidentiary proof of actual bias or the “appearance of bias” on the part of the arbitrator (see Matter of Wisner Professional Bldg. v Zitone Constr. & Supply Co., 224 AD2d 538, 538 [1996]). Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish entitlement to vacatur of the arbitrator’s award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (ii) on the ground of partiality.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Heller v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist.
2017 NY Slip Op 7122 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Klein v. GEICO General Insurance
109 A.D.3d 825 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Balis v. Chubb Group of Insurance
50 A.D.3d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 A.D.3d 672, 802 N.Y.S.2d 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2005.