From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HEMLALL v. NGO

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 8, 2009
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 52054 (N.Y. App. Term 2009)

Opinion

2008-1825 Q C.

Decided October 8, 2009.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Anna Culley, J.), entered August 28, 2008. The order denied plaintiff's motion to vacate or modify an arbitrator's award and restore the case to the calendar.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed without costs.

PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ.


Plaintiff commenced this small claims action seeking to recover for property damage allegedly sustained in an automobile accident. The parties thereafter submitted the matter to arbitration ( see Hildebrand v Nowak Allied Contrs., Inc. , 24 Misc 3d 132[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51376[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2009]; Heinz v Serban , 3 Misc 3d 134 [A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50453[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2004]). Following the arbitrator's award in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $1,362, plaintiff moved to vacate or modify the award upon the ground, set forth in CPLR 7511 (c) (1), that there was a miscalculation of figures. Plaintiff asserted, inter alia, that the award should have been for the sum of $1,862, or approximately 50% of the amount sought by him, $3,723.48, since defense counsel had previously acknowledged that defendants were 50% liable for the damages. In opposition to the motion, defense counsel denied that there had been an agreement that defendants were 50% liable and noted, inter alia, that defendants had testified that plaintiff moved into their lane of traffic, causing the contact between the vehicles, and, thus, that the accident was due solely to plaintiff's negligence.

We are of the view that plaintiff's motion was properly denied since a mathematical error in the computation of damages was not evident from the face of the award ( see Matter of City of Troy [Village of Menands], 48 AD2d 733; 23A Carmody-Wait 2d § 141:229, at 66). "[C]ourts will not second-guess the factual findings or the legal conclusions of the arbitrator" ( Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 632; Matter of Healthcare Resources Intl. [Blue Cross Blue Shield of W. NY], 258 AD2d 962).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

HEMLALL v. NGO

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 8, 2009
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 52054 (N.Y. App. Term 2009)
Case details for

HEMLALL v. NGO

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT HEMLALL, Appellant, v. JOHNATHAN NGO and THICAM TU NGO, Respondents

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 8, 2009

Citations

2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 52054 (N.Y. App. Term 2009)
901 N.Y.S.2d 906