Sterling Cheek v. Chubb & Son, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sterling Cheek v. Chubb & Son, Inc.

70 A.D.2d 622, 416 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12048

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

DecidedMay 14, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 70 A.D.2d 622 (Sterling Cheek v. Chubb & Son, Inc.) 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

Sterling Cheek v. Chubb & Son, Inc., 70 A.D.2d 622, 416 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12048 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by petitioner from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 5, 1978, which granted respondent’s motion for reargument of a motion to vacate an arbitrator’s award on the ground of bias and, upon reargument, reinstated the arbitrator’s award. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The alleged bias of the arbitrator arose from a statement which, if made, occurred at the conclusion of the hearing. Petitioner waited until 11 days after the award was made and more than a month after the hearing to make the claim of bias on the part of the arbitrator. "Having such knowledge and not having objected [he] waived the right to do so after the rendition of the award” (see Matter of Cross Props. [Gimbel Bros.], 15 AD2d 913; see, also, Matter of Stevens & Co. [Rytex Corp.], 34 NY2d 123). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by petitioner from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 5, 1978, which granted respondent’s motion for reargument of a motion to vacate an arbitrator’s award on the ground of bias and, upon reargument, reinstated the arbitrator’s award. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The alleged bias of the arbitrator arose from a statement which, if made, occurred at the conclusion of the hearing. Petitioner waited until 11 days after the award was made and more than a month after the hearing to make the claim of bias on the part of the arbitrator. "Having such knowledge and not having objected [he] waived the right to do so after the rendition of the award” (see Matter of Cross Props. [Gimbel Bros.], 15 AD2d 913; see, also, Matter of Stevens & Co. [Rytex Corp.], 34 NY2d 123). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 622, 416 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sterling-cheek-v-chubb-son-inc-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack