From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chazin v. Parmet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 24, 1992
186 A.D.2d 80 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

September 24, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).


We agree with the court that the arbitrator's decision to permit rescission of the screenwriter's agreement did not irrationally rewrite the agreement. Under CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii), an arbitration award "will not be vacated even though the court concludes that [the arbitrator's] interpretation of the agreement misconstrues or disregards its plain meaning or misapplies substantive rules of law, unless it is violative of a strong public policy, or is totally irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on his power" (Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 308). None of those circumstances are present here. While appellant disputes the arbitrator's conclusion that under their agreement, respondent Kortz assigned the copyright for his screenplay in exchange for the promise of compensation when the project was capitalized, the decision to permit rescission is grounded on the determination that there was no prospect after 9 years for obtaining financing for the film project and, therefore, no chance that the partnership would compensate Kortz for his services.

We have considered appellant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.

Concur — Wallach, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Chazin v. Parmet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 24, 1992
186 A.D.2d 80 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Chazin v. Parmet

Case Details

Full title:CAROLE CHAZIN, Appellant, v. PHIL PARMET et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Sep 24, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 80 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
588 N.Y.S.2d 17