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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 2001·Published·Cited by 8 cases

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.

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

281 A.D.2d 253 (Werner Enterprises Co. v. New York City Law Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related