Zinger v. Kaye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zinger v. Kaye

79 A.D.3d 550, 912 N.Y.S.2d 404

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 550 (Zinger v. Kaye) 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

Zinger v. Kaye, 79 A.D.3d 550, 912 N.Y.S.2d 404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[551]*551Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered December 4, 2009, which, inter alia, in this dispute over legal fees, granted respondents’ motion to confirm an amended arbitration award in favor of respondent law firm in the amount of $10,014.14, plus interest and costs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s argument on appeal amounts to an assertion that the arbitrators erred in their interpretation of the facts. This assertion, even if accepted as true, is not a sufficient basis upon which to set aside an arbitration award (Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v Graef, 34 AD3d 220, 221 [2006]). Furthermore, appellant has failed to establish any other grounds upon which the arbitration award may be set aside, such as that the award was the product of fraud, misconduct, or partiality by any of the arbitrators; that the arbitrators exceeded their authority; that the arbitration was procedurally defective; or that the award was irrational or violated any strong public policy (see Hackett v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 86 NY2d 146, 154-155 [1995]; CPLR 7511 [b]).

We have considered appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Catterson, Acosta, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

[551]*551Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered December 4, 2009, which, inter alia, in this dispute over legal fees, granted respondents’ motion to confirm an amended arbitration award in favor of respondent law firm in the amount of $10,014.14, plus interest and costs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s argument on appeal amounts to an assertion that the arbitrators erred in their interpretation of the facts. This assertion, even if accepted as true, is not a sufficient basis upon which to set aside an arbitration award (Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v Graef, 34 AD3d 220, 221 [2006]). Furthermore, appellant has failed to establish any other grounds upon which the arbitration award may be set aside, such as that the award was the product of fraud, misconduct, or partiality by any of the arbitrators; that the arbitrators exceeded their authority; that the arbitration was procedurally defective; or that the award was irrational or violated any strong public policy (see Hackett v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, 86 NY2d 146, 154-155 [1995]; CPLR 7511 [b]).

We have considered appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Catterson, Acosta, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 550, 912 N.Y.S.2d 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zinger-v-kaye-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack