Vilceus v. North River Insurance

150 A.D.2d 769, 542 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7263
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 30, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 150 A.D.2d 769 (Vilceus v. North River Insurance) 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
Vilceus v. North River Insurance, 150 A.D.2d 769, 542 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7510, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated June 29, 1988, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

While an aggrieved party has only 90 days within which to move to vacate or modify an arbitration award (CPLR 7511 [a]), such a party may elect not to make a motion and, instead, raise the objection when the successful claimant moves to confirm the award (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Fireman’s [770]*770Fund Ins. Co., 121 AD2d 529; Matter of Katz [UvegiJ, 18 Misc 2d 576, 583, affd 11 AD2d 773). A party participating in the arbitration proceeding, however, may oppose the application to confirm the award only upon the grounds enumerated for vacating or modifying arbitration awards (CPLR 7511 [b], [c]; see, Home Ins. Co. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 134 AD2d 570, 571; Materia v Josephthal & Co., 133 AD2d 146; 8 Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac K 7510.09). Inasmuch as the effect, if any, to be attributed to an earlier arbitration award in subsequent arbitration proceedings is a matter for the arbitrator’s determination (see, Matter of City School Dist. v Tonawanda Educ. Assn., 63 NY2d 846; Board of Educ. v Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers, 48 NY2d 812) and, in view of the fact that the doctrine of res judicata is not included as one of the grounds set forth in CPLR 7511 upon which the court may vacate or modify an arbitration award (see, Matter of City School Dist. v Tonawanda Educ. Assn., supra), the Supreme Court properly granted the petition.

We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Spatt and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Progressive Northern Insurance Co. v. Sentry Insurance A Mutual Co.
51 A.D.3d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Globus Coffee, LLC v. SJN, Inc.
47 A.D.3d 713 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Bonilla
219 A.D.2d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Brentnall v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
194 A.D.2d 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Sewell v. New York City Transit Authority
809 F. Supp. 208 (E.D. New York, 1992)
In re the Arbitration between City of Albany & Albany Permanent Professional Firefighters Ass'n, Local 2007
177 A.D.2d 832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Birchwood Management Corp. v. Local 670, Stationary Engineers, RWDSU, AFL-CIO
154 A.D.2d 531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 A.D.2d 769, 542 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vilceus-v-north-river-insurance-nyappdiv-1989.