Woodbury Chevrolet-Buick, Inc. v. New York State Dispute Resolution Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Woodbury Chevrolet-Buick, Inc. v. New York State Dispute Resolution Ass'n

295 A.D.2d 356, 743 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5759

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

DecidedJune 3, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 356 (Woodbury Chevrolet-Buick, Inc. v. New York State Dispute Resolution 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

Woodbury Chevrolet-Buick, Inc. v. New York State Dispute Resolution Ass'n, 295 A.D.2d 356, 743 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated September 26, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, there was evidentiary support for the arbitrator’s award to the buyers of a full refund of the purchase price of a used truck they purchased. The award was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of Motor Vehicle Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214; Jenkins v Empire/Allcity Ins. Co., 289 AD2d 331).

[357]*357The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated September 26, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, there was evidentiary support for the arbitrator’s award to the buyers of a full refund of the purchase price of a used truck they purchased. The award was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of Motor Vehicle Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214; Jenkins v Empire/Allcity Ins. Co., 289 AD2d 331).

[357]*357The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 356, 743 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodbury-chevrolet-buick-inc-v-new-york-state-dispute-resolution-assn-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack