Werner Enterprises Co. v. New York City Law Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Werner Enterprises Co. v. New York City Law Department

281 A.D.2d 253, 721 N.Y.S.2d 536, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2454

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 253 (Werner Enterprises Co. v. New York City Law Department) 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

Werner Enterprises Co. v. New York City Law Department, 281 A.D.2d 253, 721 N.Y.S.2d 536, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered December 3, 1999, which, in this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR 7511, inter alia, denied petitioner’s motion to vacate and set aside two arbitration awards, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Vacatur of the subject awards was properly denied, since the proceeding was commenced more than 90 days after the awards were delivered to petitioner, as evidenced by the letter of petitioner’s counsel to the arbitration forum acknowledging receipt of the award (see, CPLR 7511 [a]; see, Robinson v City of New York, 237 AD2d 127, lv denied 90 NY2d 801). Contrary to petitioner’s argument, there is nothing to suggest that, because petitioner seeks to vacate the subject awards upon grounds set forth in CPLR 7511 (b) (2), the time limitation set forth in CPLR 7511 (a) may be dispensed with (see, CPLR 201).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered December 3, 1999, which, in this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR 7511, inter alia, denied petitioner’s motion to vacate and set aside two arbitration awards, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Vacatur of the subject awards was properly denied, since the proceeding was commenced more than 90 days after the awards were delivered to petitioner, as evidenced by the letter of petitioner’s counsel to the arbitration forum acknowledging receipt of the award (see, CPLR 7511 [a]; see, Robinson v City of New York, 237 AD2d 127, lv denied 90 NY2d 801). Contrary to petitioner’s argument, there is nothing to suggest that, because petitioner seeks to vacate the subject awards upon grounds set forth in CPLR 7511 (b) (2), the time limitation set forth in CPLR 7511 (a) may be dispensed with (see, CPLR 201).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 253, 721 N.Y.S.2d 536, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/werner-enterprises-co-v-new-york-city-law-department-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack