Matter of Hunter

16 Citing cases

  1. Matter of States Mar. Lines

    13 N.Y.2d 206 (N.Y. 1963)   Cited 17 times

    By the same token, an award does not lack definiteness or finality if it prescribes a wage scale which is to fluctuate depending on some outside factor as long as that factor is itself fixed or readily determinable. (See Matter of Hunter [ Proser], 298 N.Y. 828, affg. 274 App. Div. 311; Matter of Overseas Distrs.Exch. [ Benedict Bros. Co.], 5 A.D.2d 498, 499; see, also, 21 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, pp. 545-546.) "The fact that certain computations will have to be made week by week to carry the award into effect", the court declared in the Hunter case ( 274 App. Div. 311, 312, affd. 298 N.Y. 828, supra), "does not render the award ineffective for the present or for the future.

  2. Avon Products, Inc. v. Solow

    215 A.D.2d 247 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 2 times

    Accordingly, the court's grant of injunctive relief, enjoining defendant from disobeying the court's prior order and judgment, was patently proper. (See, Matter of Hunter [Proser], 274 App. Div. 311, 312, affd 298 N.Y. 828.)

  3. Trudeau

    135 A.D.2d 150 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)   Cited 5 times

    The specifics of the identities of the affected teachers, their respective rates of pay and attendance at preassigned sessions were apparently readily ascertainable from School District records, since the parties were able to arrive at an agreement on these particulars when they met to implement the award. Consequently, the remedy to which each such teacher was entitled under the award was calculable and the award was thus sufficiently definite to withstand the School District's challenge (accord, Matter of Hunter [Proser], 274 App. Div. 311, affd 298 N.Y. 828). Finally, we agree with Supreme Court's dismissal of the School District's action for a declaration that the Association was restricted by the terms of the December 20, 1984 stipulation from seeking compensatory damages on behalf of the grieving teachers arising out of events subsequent to the date of the stipulation.

  4. Morgan Guaranty Tr. Co. of New York v. Solow

    114 A.D.2d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)   Cited 5 times

    All that remained was a calculation of the amount due based upon that formula. This was a mere ministerial act and did not detract from the finality of the award (Matter of States Mar. Lines [Crooks], 13 N.Y.2d 206, affg 19 A.D.2d 1; Matter of Hunter [Proser], 274 App. Div. 311, affd 298 N.Y. 828; Matter of Overseas Distribs. Exch. [Benedict Bros. Co.], 5 A.D.2d 498). Where "[t]he formulae for the computations are so clear and specific that the determination of the amounts owing * * * is merely an accounting calculation", the award is final and definite and is required to be confirmed (Matter of Hunter [Proser], supra, 274 App. Div. 311, 312).

  5. Rural Water Dist. No. 6 v. Ziegler Corp.

    9 Kan. App. 2d 305 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 16 times

    Leavenworths&sSon, Inc. v. Kimble, 157 Miss. 462, 128 So. 354 (1930); Martin v. Winston, 181 Va. 94, 23 S.E.2d 873, cert. denied 319 U.S. 766, 63 S.Ct. 1330, 87 L.Ed. 1716 (1943); 6 C.J.S. Arbitration § 111. It has also been held that an award is sufficiently final when only a mathematical[9 Kan.App.2d 312] calculation is required for its implementation. Matter of Hunter v. Proser, 298 N.Y. 828, 84 N.E.2d 143 (1949). In 5 Am.Jur.2d, Arbitration and Award § 141, the matter is stated as follows:

  6. Matter of States Mar. Lines

    19 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)   Cited 3 times

    It is not a valid objection to an award to say that the amount payable may depend on a computation the base of which may change from time to time, if it be certain that at the time the computation must be made the base will be definite and ascertainable. A good illustration of this principle is Matter of Hunter v. Proser ( 274 App. Div. 311, affd. 298 N.Y. 828). The decision in Matter of Overseas Distrs. Exch. ( Benedict Bros. Co.) ( 5 A.D.2d 498) recognizes this general rule. In the case before us these essential conditions are met. The salary of the commodore under the award will be at least $1,500 a month. If the chief engineer on the same vessel and on the same payroll of the same employer gets $1,400 a month, the commodore must get $1,600; and this progression will be followed upward.

  7. Gluck Co. v. Tankel

    12 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961)   Cited 18 times
    In R.C. Gluck & Co., Inc. v Louis Tankel, 12 AD2d 339 (1961), the First Department held that a member of a partnership has a meritorious claim for an accounting based upon an alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the other partner.

    ) (McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 1, Statutes, § 54.) The section and subdivision are applicable to a judgment confirming an award of arbitrators ( Matter of Hunter [ Proser], 274 App. Div. 311, affd. 298 N.Y. 828; Civ. Prac. Act, § 1466). We have seen that the subdivision may be applied where the fiduciary relationships involved a trustee, a mother and daughter, and a husband and wife.

  8. Matter of Koppell

    8 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)   Cited 1 times

    The award is responsive to the respective demands for arbitration. Any dispute incident to compliance with the award may be properly the subject of further arbitration, but that question is not yet reached. Under the circumstances, the appointment of a referee to take and state the account is unnecessary. ( Matter of Hunter [ Proser], 274 App. Div. 311, affd. 298 N.Y. 828.) Concur — Breitel, J.P., M.M. Frank, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

  9. Matter of Overseas Distrs

    5 A.D.2d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)   Cited 8 times

    We recognize that an award may be deemed to be final if all that remains to be done are ministerial acts or arithmetical calculations. Where a formula for computation is so clear that the amount to be paid is merely an accounting calculation, then there is a definite determination of the rights of the parties and the award is final and enforcible. ( Matter of Hunter [ Proser], 274 App. Div. 311, affd. 298 N.Y. 828.) But the award herein leaves open the amount which appellants are obligated to pay, reserves certain other matters to the taking of subsequent oaths and requires a deposit of funds in accordance with the books of one of the parties.

  10. Am. Transit Ins. Co. v. McMahon

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 50716 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2022)

    Here, the no-fault arbitration award determined ATIC's and [respondent]'s rights and obligations, resolved the claims submitted to arbitration, and did not create any new controversies. Although not raised by petitioner, the court notes that the fact that the no-fault arbitration award did not specify an exact amount of interest or attorney's fees awarded does not render the award indefinite, because the amounts may be ascertained through computation of simple arithmetic (see Matter of Hunter [Proser], 274 AD 311, 312 [1st Dept 1948] , affd 298 NY 828 [1949]). Therefore, ATIC's petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award is denied.