Viselman v. Itsy Bitsy Entertainment Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Viselman v. Itsy Bitsy Entertainment Co.

19 A.D.3d 186, 796 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6526

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

DecidedJune 14, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.3d 186 (Viselman v. Itsy Bitsy Entertainment Co.) 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

Viselman v. Itsy Bitsy Entertainment Co., 19 A.D.3d 186, 796 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered January 7, 2005, which denied petitioner’s application to vacate an arbitration, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence supporting the award, and the panel’s finding that the company in which petitioner seeks to recover an equity interest was rendered worthless in part because of petitioner’s actions, meets the standard of Matter of Andros Cia. Marítima, S.A. of Kissavos (Marc Rich & Co., A.G.) (579 F2d 691, 704 [2d Cir 1978]). Nor was petitioner denied a “fundamentally fair hearing” (Fine v Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., 765 F Supp 824, 828-829 [SD NY 1991]) by the panel’s refusal to fully enforce disclosure directives made at the outset of the hearing. However, the appeal is not frivolous and we reject respondents’ request to impose sanctions. Concur—Buckley, PJ., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered January 7, 2005, which denied petitioner’s application to vacate an arbitration, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence supporting the award, and the panel’s finding that the company in which petitioner seeks to recover an equity interest was rendered worthless in part because of petitioner’s actions, meets the standard of Matter of Andros Cia. Marítima, S.A. of Kissavos (Marc Rich & Co., A.G.) (579 F2d 691, 704 [2d Cir 1978]). Nor was petitioner denied a “fundamentally fair hearing” (Fine v Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., 765 F Supp 824, 828-829 [SD NY 1991]) by the panel’s refusal to fully enforce disclosure directives made at the outset of the hearing. However, the appeal is not frivolous and we reject respondents’ request to impose sanctions. Concur—Buckley, PJ., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 186, 796 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viselman-v-itsy-bitsy-entertainment-co-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack