From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Arbitration Goldstein v. Riverso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 12, 2000
276 A.D.2d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

October 12, 2000.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), entered October 14, 1999, which confirmed an arbitration award in favor of petitioner and adjudged that petitioner recover from respondent the total sum of $40,554.51, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Daniel C. Callaway, for petitioner-respondent.

Joseph J. Ranni, for respondent-appellant.

Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Williams, Lerner, Saxe, Buckley, JJ.


The arbitration award of legal fees was supported by the record and in accord with the applicable law, and was properly confirmed. In any event, an arbitrator's award "will not be vacated even though . . . his 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 . . ." (Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 308; see also, Turkewitz v. Fuchsberg Fuchsberg, 273 A.D.2d 149, 710 N.Y.S.2d 891). We note as well that in arbitration respondent failed to plead the affirmative defense of the Statute of Frauds and accordingly may not now have the award vacated on that ground.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

In re Arbitration Goldstein v. Riverso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 12, 2000
276 A.D.2d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

In re Arbitration Goldstein v. Riverso

Case Details

Full title:IN RE ARBITRATION BETWEEN SHELDON E. GOLDSTEIN, P.C.…

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

Date published: Oct 12, 2000

Citations

276 A.D.2d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
714 N.Y.S.2d 456

Citing Cases

Miranco Contracting, Inc. v. Perel

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the existence of a contract (…