From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bornstein v. Steinberg

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 7, 2022
2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 6924 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

Opinion

No. 2020-03338 Index No. 502028/13

12-07-2022

In the Matter of Nathan Bornstein, etc., respondent, v. Morris Steinberg, etc., appellant.

Herrick Feinstein, LLP, New York, NY (Avery S. Mehlman of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Joseph J. Schwartz, P.C., Brooklyn, NY, for respondent.


Herrick Feinstein, LLP, New York, NY (Avery S. Mehlman of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Joseph J. Schwartz, P.C., Brooklyn, NY, for respondent.

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P. FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY PAUL WOOTEN JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award dated May 21, 2012, Morris Steinberg appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Larry D. Martin, J.), dated February 10, 2020. The order denied the motion of Morris Steinberg, in effect, to vacate a judgment of the same court entered September 18, 2019.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, this Court held, in a prior appeal (see Matter of Bornstein v Steinberg, 175 A.D.3d 605, 606), that the arbitration award was final and definite in that it determined that the appellant, Morris Steinberg, owed the fixed sum of $2,011,381 to Nathan Bornstein. The Clerk of the Supreme Court thereafter entered a judgment in favor of Bornstein and against the appellant, in the principal sum of $2,011,381. The appellant moved, in effect, to vacate the judgment. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and this appeal ensued. We affirm.

Here, contrary to the appellant's argument, the judgment was not inconsistent with the arbitration award. The judgment accurately conveyed the determination in the arbitration award that the appellant owed the fixed sum of $2,011,381 to Bornstein (see CPLR 5011; Matter of Bornstein, 175 A.D.3d at 606). The appellant's contention that the judgment omitted information about conditions concerning payment of the arbitration award is without merit.

The appellant's remaining contention is improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

DUFFY, J.P., CONNOLLY, WOOTEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bornstein v. Steinberg

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 7, 2022
2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 6924 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
Case details for

Bornstein v. Steinberg

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Nathan Bornstein, etc., respondent, v. Morris Steinberg…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 7, 2022

Citations

2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 6924 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
177 N.Y.S.3d 901

Citing Cases

Makmudova v. Cohen

Since there is no basis to disturb the Court Attorney Referee's finding that the testimony of the process…