Stonington Management Corp. v. Furtsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stonington Management Corp. v. Furtsch

298 A.D.2d 247, 748 N.Y.S.2d 258, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9717

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 247 (Stonington Management Corp. v. Furtsch) 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

Stonington Management Corp. v. Furtsch, 298 A.D.2d 247, 748 N.Y.S.2d 258, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered February 27, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the petition to modify or vacate the arbitration award, and confirmed the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered October 15, 2001, unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs.

Vacatur of an arbitrator’s award is statutorily limited to occasions involving fraud, corruption or bias — factors not present here — or occasions when the arbitrator exceeded his or her power, or so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award was not made (see CPLR 7511 [b]; Local 375 v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 257 AD2d 530, 532). Absent a statutory basis, vacatur is unauthorized (see Matter of Sims v Siegelson, 246 AD2d 374, 377). Here, the arbitrators’ finding that the written agreements between petitioner and respondent did not give petitioner ownership of an Internet business developed by respondent was supported by the evidence. Petitioner, in seeking vacatur of the award, thus failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the award was irrational, or in violation of public policy or otherwise in excess of the arbitrators’ powers (see Matter of Travelers Ins. Co. v Job, 239 AD2d 289, 293). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered February 27, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the petition to modify or vacate the arbitration award, and confirmed the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered October 15, 2001, unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs.

Vacatur of an arbitrator’s award is statutorily limited to occasions involving fraud, corruption or bias — factors not present here — or occasions when the arbitrator exceeded his or her power, or so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award was not made (see CPLR 7511 [b]; Local 375 v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 257 AD2d 530, 532). Absent a statutory basis, vacatur is unauthorized (see Matter of Sims v Siegelson, 246 AD2d 374, 377). Here, the arbitrators’ finding that the written agreements between petitioner and respondent did not give petitioner ownership of an Internet business developed by respondent was supported by the evidence. Petitioner, in seeking vacatur of the award, thus failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the award was irrational, or in violation of public policy or otherwise in excess of the arbitrators’ powers (see Matter of Travelers Ins. Co. v Job, 239 AD2d 289, 293). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 247, 748 N.Y.S.2d 258, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stonington-management-corp-v-furtsch-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack