From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Morantz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 11, 1949
275 App. Div. 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)

Opinion

May 11, 1949.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Sullivan County.


The controversy submitted was precisely stated as to whether appellant had (unjustly) "injured the reputation or standing" of the respondents. Any award of money damages was waived. Respondents were meat dealers in both kosher and nonkosher meat. Appellant is a rabbi who had refused to certify respondents as kosher dealers and they had sued him for defamation. The arbitration was in "lieu" of such "legal action". The award is ambiguous in that it states that respondents "has no claim" against appellant "for his not certifying until now the use of the meat" sold by them, and then, following certain recitals it orders appellant to list their business as kosher. The submission involved the issue as to the kosher qualifications of respondents' business only as it related to the issue of defamation. The matter of appellant's duty to presently certify or list their business as so qualified under the arrangements alluded to in the award, was not submitted. Not only did the arbitrators exceed their powers in that regard but they have so imperfectly executed their commission that a "mutual, final and definite award upon the subject-matter submitted was not made." (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1462, subd. 4.) Judgment and order reversed, on the law and the facts, award vacated and a rehearing directed before the same arbitrators at such time and place as may be duly fixed, with $25 costs and disbursements to abide the event. Brewster, Deyo and Bergan, JJ., concur; Heffernan, J., dissents in the following memorandum in which Foster, P.J., concurs: The only question submitted to the arbitrators in this case is whether or not appellant "injured the reputation or standing" of the respondents. An award of money damage was waived. No justiciable question is presented for review. Complete jurisdiction includes not only the power to hear and determine the case, but also power to enforce the judgment. This court has no power to enforce any judgment herein and hence it should decline to entertain or to attempt to exercise jurisdiction where it has no power to enforce the judgment which may be rendered. Accordingly, this court having no jurisdiction, the appeal should be dismissed.


Summaries of

Matter of Morantz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 11, 1949
275 App. Div. 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)
Case details for

Matter of Morantz

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Arbitration between JACK MORANTZ et al., Copartners…

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

Date published: May 11, 1949

Citations

275 App. Div. 873 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)

Citing Cases

In re the Arbitration between Kyne & Molfetas

The award thus directs payments to unnamed individuals and in that form is so imperfectly executed that it…