Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Wein v. Rothenberg

Wein v. Rothenberg

148 A.D.2d 529, 540 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2776
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 13, 1989
StatusPublished

This text of 148 A.D.2d 529 (Wein v. Rothenberg) 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
Wein v. Rothenberg, 148 A.D.2d 529, 540 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

In a proceeding, inter alia, to stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), dated February 17, 1987, as (1) vacated a prior order of the same court, dated July 7, 1986, which, inter alia, removed Syche Heschel as arbitrator, (2) reinstated that arbitrator, and (3) denied that portion of the petition which was to strike certain noncompetition clauses of a contract dated March 8, 1983, in their entirety.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Our review of the record reveals that the arbitrator chosen by the parties disclosed all facts upon which the claim of bias is premised, that the petitioner nevertheless entered into a new contract by which the arbitrator was reappointed, and that the petitioner proceeded to arbitration with such knowledge. The court therefore properly denied that branch of the petitioner’s application which was to disqualify the arbitrator on the ground of bias (see, Matter of Stevens & Co. [Rytex Corp.], 34 NY2d 123, 129-130; Matter of Astoria Med. Group [Health Ins. Plan], 11 NY2d 128, 136; De Camp v Good Samaritan Hosp., 66 AD2d 766, 768). Moreover, under the circumstances, the issues of economic duress and breach of contract were properly left for resolution by the arbitrator (see, Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190, 198; Oberlander v Find Care, 108 AD2d 798, 799; I.J.S. Fabrics v Dan Riv., Inc., 81 AD2d 525, 526), as were any remaining questions [530]*530concerning the legal meaning and the reasonableness of the restrictive covenants (see, Maross Constr. v Central N. Y. Regional Transp. Auth., 66 NY2d 341, 347; Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 632; Matter of Tringali, 91 AD2d 887, 888). Eiber, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In Re Arbitration Between J. P. Stevens & Co. & Rytex Corp.
312 N.E.2d 466 (New York Court of Appeals, 1974)
In Re Arbitration Between Astoria Medical Group & Health Insurance Plan
182 N.E.2d 85 (New York Court of Appeals, 1962)
In Re the Arbitration Between Weinrott & Carp
298 N.E.2d 42 (New York Court of Appeals, 1973)
In re the Arbitration between Sprinzen & Nomberg
389 N.E.2d 456 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
Maross Construction, Inc. v. Central New York Regional Transportation Authority
488 N.E.2d 67 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
De Camp v. Good Samaritan Hospital
66 A.D.2d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
I.J.S. Fabrics, Inc. v. Dan River, Inc.
81 A.D.2d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
In re the Arbitration between Tringali & Focus on Sports, Inc.
91 A.D.2d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Oberlander v. Fine Care, Inc.
108 A.D.2d 798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
148 A.D.2d 529, 540 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wein-v-rothenberg-nyappdiv-1989.