Steinberg v. Sahr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steinberg v. Sahr

54 A.D.3d 1043, 863 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 54 A.D.3d 1043 (Steinberg v. Sahr) 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

Steinberg v. Sahr, 54 A.D.3d 1043, 863 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated September 26, 2006, which awarded Novitt & Sahr two thirds of certain disputed attorney’s fees collected by the petitioner, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J), entered August 30, 2007, as, upon a decision [1044]*1044of the same court dated May 8, 2007, denied the petition and granted that branch of the cross petition of Novitt & Sahr which was to confirm the arbitration award.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

An arbitration award may not be vacated unless it is irrational, violates a strong public policy, or clearly exceeds a limitation imposed on the arbitrator as enumerated in CPLR 7511 (b) (see Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 NY2d 33, 37 [1991]; Matter of County of Nassau v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., 19 AD3d 414, 415 [2005]). An arbitrator exceeds his or her power under CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) if the award ‘g[ives] a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute and, in effect, ma[kes] a new contract for the parties” (Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson], 8 NY2d 377, 383 [I960]; see Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn., 41 NY2d 578, 582 [1977]; Matter of County of Nassau v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., 19 AD3d at 415). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the arbitrator’s determination was within her power, did not violate a strong public policy, and was not irrational. Accordingly, the award was properly confirmed. Fisher, J.P, Dillon, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur. /

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated September 26, 2006, which awarded Novitt & Sahr two thirds of certain disputed attorney’s fees collected by the petitioner, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J), entered August 30, 2007, as, upon a decision [1044]*1044of the same court dated May 8, 2007, denied the petition and granted that branch of the cross petition of Novitt & Sahr which was to confirm the arbitration award.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

An arbitration award may not be vacated unless it is irrational, violates a strong public policy, or clearly exceeds a limitation imposed on the arbitrator as enumerated in CPLR 7511 (b) (see Matter of Board of Educ. of Arlington Cent. School Dist. v Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 NY2d 33, 37 [1991]; Matter of County of Nassau v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., 19 AD3d 414, 415 [2005]). An arbitrator exceeds his or her power under CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) if the award ‘g[ives] a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute and, in effect, ma[kes] a new contract for the parties” (Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson], 8 NY2d 377, 383 [I960]; see Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn., 41 NY2d 578, 582 [1977]; Matter of County of Nassau v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., 19 AD3d at 415). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the arbitrator’s determination was within her power, did not violate a strong public policy, and was not irrational. Accordingly, the award was properly confirmed. Fisher, J.P, Dillon, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur. /

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.3d 1043, 863 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinberg-v-sahr-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack