From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Karlin v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 17, 1988
143 A.D.2d 831 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

October 17, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that Gordon Roman, William Garris and James O'Shea are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

In a written contract Seymour and Florence Karlin agreed to sell to Gordon Roman, William Garris, and James O'Shea all of the shares of two New York corporations, each of which held title to a commercial charter fishing boat. One of the fishing boats had a $99,000 mortgage placed on it that was guaranteed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (hereinafter National Marine). Roman, Garris and O'Shea wanted to place a second mortgage on the fishing boat, and, in order to do so, the Karlins had to obtain a subordination agreement from National Marine. Their failure to obtain such an agreement prevented the parties from closing in a timely fashion, and Roman, Garris and O'Shea canceled the contract.

In deciding that Roman, Garris and O'Shea were entitled to the return of their down payment, the arbitrator stated in the award that the Karlins were to obtain the subordination agreement from the Small Business Administration rather than from National Marine. This mistake of fact or error in the naming of the agency which had to furnish the subordination agreement does not render the arbitrator's determination "completely irrational", and thus no ground exists to vacate the award (see, Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 N.Y.2d 623, 629; Lentine v Fundaro, 29 N.Y.2d 382, 385-386; see also, Matter of Damast v Damast, 95 A.D.2d 776; Matter of Guetta [Raxon Fabrics Corp.], 123 A.D.2d 40). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Karlin v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 17, 1988
143 A.D.2d 831 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Matter of Karlin v. Roman

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SEYMOUR KARLIN et al., Appellants, v. GORDON ROMAN et…

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

Date published: Oct 17, 1988

Citations

143 A.D.2d 831 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Weiner v. Siderow Org., LLC

The party seeking to have the award vacated carries the heavy burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing…

Aronshtein v. Sutton

A mere mistake of fact or error in judgment on the part of the arbitrator, however, is not sufficient to…