Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc. v. Brandman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc. v. Brandman

192 A.D.2d 497, 597 N.Y.S.2d 39

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

DecidedApril 29, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 497 (Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc. v. Brandman) 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

Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc. v. Brandman, 192 A.D.2d 497, 597 N.Y.S.2d 39 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered January 27, 1992, denying petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and granting respondent’s cross-motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly denied the petition to confirm an arbitration award because the arbitrators’ misconduct prejudiced respondent’s rights (CPLR 7511 [b] [1]). Although the decision to grant or deny adjournments is generally within the arbitrators’ discretion (CPLR 7506 [b]; New York Stock Exchange rule 617) the arbitrators’ abuse of that discretion in this case amounted to prejudicial misconduct (Harwyn Luggage v Henry Rosenfeld, Inc., 90 AD2d 747, affd 58 NY2d 1063).

Respondent was not duly notified of the arbitration hearing. Due notice requires the arbitrator to "notify the parties in writing personally or by registered or certified mail not less than eight days before the hearing” (CPLR 7506 [b]). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered January 27, 1992, denying petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and granting respondent’s cross-motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly denied the petition to confirm an arbitration award because the arbitrators’ misconduct prejudiced respondent’s rights (CPLR 7511 [b] [1]). Although the decision to grant or deny adjournments is generally within the arbitrators’ discretion (CPLR 7506 [b]; New York Stock Exchange rule 617) the arbitrators’ abuse of that discretion in this case amounted to prejudicial misconduct (Harwyn Luggage v Henry Rosenfeld, Inc., 90 AD2d 747, affd 58 NY2d 1063).

Respondent was not duly notified of the arbitration hearing. Due notice requires the arbitrator to "notify the parties in writing personally or by registered or certified mail not less than eight days before the hearing” (CPLR 7506 [b]). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 497, 597 N.Y.S.2d 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wedbush-morgan-securities-inc-v-brandman-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack