Stratek Plastics, Ltd. v. Ibar

Connecticut Appellate Court

Stratek Plastics, Ltd. v. Ibar

991 A.2d 577, 120 Conn. App. 90, 2010 Conn. App. LEXIS 100

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 23, 2010

DocketAC 30465

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 991 A.2d 577 (Stratek Plastics, Ltd. v. Ibar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stratek Plastics, Ltd. v. Ibar, 991 A.2d 577, 120 Conn. App. 90, 2010 Conn. App. LEXIS 100 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Jean-Pierre Ibar, appeals from the judgment of the trial court confirming an arbitration award that resulted from arbitration proceedings he had entered into with the plaintiffs, Stratek *91 Plastics, Ltd., and Stamford Polymer Research Laboratory, Inc. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly granted the plaintiffs’ application to confirm the arbitration award and (2) the court improperly denied the defendant’s request to open the judgment confirming the award. Underlying both of these claims is an allegation that the defendant was not properly served with notice. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

“General Statutes § 52-417 provides that in ruling on an application to confirm an arbitration award [t]he court or judge shall grant such an order confirming the award unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected as prescribed in [General Statutes §§] 52-418 and 52-419. . . . The trial court lacks any discretion in confirming the arbitration award unless the award suffers from any of the defects described in . . . §§52-418 and 52-419. . . . Furthermore, if a motion to vacate, modify or correct is not made within the thirty day time limit specified in General Statutes § 52-420, the award may not thereafter be attacked on any of the grounds specified in §§ 52-418 and 52-419.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1588 v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 33 Conn. App. 1, 3-4, 632 A.2d 713 (1993).

The defendant did not file a motion to vacate, modify or correct the award as prescribed in §§ 52-418 and 52-419 within the thirty day time limit specified in § 52-420. Therefore, the court correctly issued an order confirming the award. As such, there is no error. 1

The judgment is affirmed.

1

The defendant’s argument that he did not have proper notice of the plaintiffs’ application to confirm the arbitration award is of no consequence to our analysis. Section 52-420 (b) clearly places the onus of filing a motion to vacate, modify or correct on the party challenging the award within thirty days of receiving notice of the arbitration a,ward, not on the counterparty’s filing of an application to confirm the award with the Superior Court. All Seasons Services, Inc. v. Guildner, 94 Conn. App. 1, 7, 891 A.2d 97 (2006).

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Jean-Pierre Ibar, appeals from the judgment of the trial court confirming an arbitration award that resulted from arbitration proceedings he had entered into with the plaintiffs, Stratek *91 Plastics, Ltd., and Stamford Polymer Research Laboratory, Inc. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly granted the plaintiffs’ application to confirm the arbitration award and (2) the court improperly denied the defendant’s request to open the judgment confirming the award. Underlying both of these claims is an allegation that the defendant was not properly served with notice. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

“General Statutes § 52-417 provides that in ruling on an application to confirm an arbitration award [t]he court or judge shall grant such an order confirming the award unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected as prescribed in [General Statutes §§] 52-418 and 52-419. . . . The trial court lacks any discretion in confirming the arbitration award unless the award suffers from any of the defects described in . . . §§52-418 and 52-419. . . . Furthermore, if a motion to vacate, modify or correct is not made within the thirty day time limit specified in General Statutes § 52-420, the award may not thereafter be attacked on any of the grounds specified in §§ 52-418 and 52-419.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1588 v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 33 Conn. App. 1, 3-4, 632 A.2d 713 (1993).

The defendant did not file a motion to vacate, modify or correct the award as prescribed in §§ 52-418 and 52-419 within the thirty day time limit specified in § 52-420. Therefore, the court correctly issued an order confirming the award. As such, there is no error. 1

The judgment is affirmed.

1

The defendant’s argument that he did not have proper notice of the plaintiffs’ application to confirm the arbitration award is of no consequence to our analysis. Section 52-420 (b) clearly places the onus of filing a motion to vacate, modify or correct on the party challenging the award within thirty days of receiving notice of the arbitration a,ward, not on the counterparty’s filing of an application to confirm the award with the Superior Court. All Seasons Services, Inc. v. Guildner, 94 Conn. App. 1, 7, 891 A.2d 97 (2006).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

991 A.2d 577, 120 Conn. App. 90, 2010 Conn. App. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stratek-plastics-ltd-v-ibar-connappct-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack