Seneca Insurance v. Ruday Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seneca Insurance v. Ruday Realty Corp.

87 A.D.3d 579, 929 N.Y.2d 740

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

DecidedAugust 9, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.3d 579 (Seneca Insurance v. Ruday Realty Corp.) 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

Seneca Insurance v. Ruday Realty Corp., 87 A.D.3d 579, 929 N.Y.2d 740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the contentions of the defendants Ruday Realty [580]*580Corp. and Crosstown Management Corp. (hereinafter together the appellants), vacatur and/or an increase of the subject mediation award is not warranted since the award did not violate a strong public policy, was not irrational, and did not manifestly exceed a specific, enumerated limitation on the mediator’s power (see Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Town of Callicoon Unit], 70 NY2d 907, 909 [1987]; see also Matter of Local 456, Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters v City of Yonkers, 75 AD3d 555 [2010]; Matter of Scher Law Firm, LLP v 87-10 51st Ave. Owners Corp., 52 AD3d 611 [2008]; Matter of Balis v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 50 AD3d 682 [2008]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Belen and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 26 Misc 3d 1215(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 50105(11).]

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

Contrary to the contentions of the defendants Ruday Realty [580]*580Corp. and Crosstown Management Corp. (hereinafter together the appellants), vacatur and/or an increase of the subject mediation award is not warranted since the award did not violate a strong public policy, was not irrational, and did not manifestly exceed a specific, enumerated limitation on the mediator’s power (see Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Town of Callicoon Unit], 70 NY2d 907, 909 [1987]; see also Matter of Local 456, Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters v City of Yonkers, 75 AD3d 555 [2010]; Matter of Scher Law Firm, LLP v 87-10 51st Ave. Owners Corp., 52 AD3d 611 [2008]; Matter of Balis v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 50 AD3d 682 [2008]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Belen and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 26 Misc 3d 1215(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 50105(11).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 579, 929 N.Y.2d 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seneca-insurance-v-ruday-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack