Weinshall v. Marine Engineers' Beneficial Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinshall v. Marine Engineers' Beneficial Ass'n

49 A.D.3d 340, 854 N.Y.2d 9

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 340 (Weinshall v. Marine Engineers' Beneficial Ass'n) 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

Weinshall v. Marine Engineers' Beneficial Ass'n, 49 A.D.3d 340, 854 N.Y.2d 9 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[341]*341“An arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator ' offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached’ ” (Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479 [2006], cert dismissed — US —, 127 S Ct 34 [2006]). Clear evidence supports the arbitrator’s decision.

A public policy the violation of which warrants vacatur of an arbitration award must entail “strong and well-defined policy considerations embodied in constitutional, statutory or common law [that] prohibit a particular matter from being decided or certain relief from being granted by an arbitrator” (Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 327 [1999]). Based on the practices in effect at the time, and the lack of clarity or training in connection with the directive in question, the IAS court properly confirmed the arbitrator’s award.

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams and McGuire, JJ. [See 13 Misc 3d 1216(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 51850(U).]

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

[341]*341“An arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator ' offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached’ ” (Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479 [2006], cert dismissed — US —, 127 S Ct 34 [2006]). Clear evidence supports the arbitrator’s decision.

A public policy the violation of which warrants vacatur of an arbitration award must entail “strong and well-defined policy considerations embodied in constitutional, statutory or common law [that] prohibit a particular matter from being decided or certain relief from being granted by an arbitrator” (Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 327 [1999]). Based on the practices in effect at the time, and the lack of clarity or training in connection with the directive in question, the IAS court properly confirmed the arbitrator’s award.

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams and McGuire, JJ. [See 13 Misc 3d 1216(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 51850(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 340, 854 N.Y.2d 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinshall-v-marine-engineers-beneficial-assn-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack