From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of M.T.M. Beverages v. Pepsi Cola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 1999
262 A.D.2d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted April 28, 1999

June 7, 1999

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), dated June 2, 1998, which, inter alia, denied the petition and granted the respondent's cross application to confirm the arbitration award.

Certilman, Balin, Adler Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N Y (Jaspreet S. Mayall of counsel), for appellant.

Stanley Israel, Long Island City, N.Y., for respondent.

SONDRA MILLER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the decision of "[w]hether to grant or refuse an adjournment is generally within the discretion of the arbitrator, and it is only if that discretion is abused that misconduct results" ( Harwyn Luggage v. Henry Rosenfeld, Inc., 90 A.D.2d 747, 747-748, affd 58 N.Y.2d 1063). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the arbitrator's denial of the petitioner's request for a further adjournment did not constitute either an abuse of discretion or misconduct sufficient to warrant vacatur of the award ( see, Matter of Banas [Leumi Sec. Corp.], 194 A.D.2d 390; Shearson Lehman Hutton v. Meyer, 174 A.D.2d 496). The request for an additional adjournment was not supported by the requisite showing ( see, Harwyn Luggage v. Henry Rosenfeld, Inc., supra; Doris Trading Corp. v. Melody Knitting Mills, 172 A.D.2d 399), nor does the record indicate that the denial of the request foreclosed the petitioner's opportunity to present relevant evidence ( see, Matter of Trivino v. Allcity Ins. Co., 227 A.D.2d 638; cf., Olan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 212 A.D.2d 362; Matter of Omega Contr. v. Maropakis Contr., 160 A.D.2d 942).

The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.


Summaries of

Matter of M.T.M. Beverages v. Pepsi Cola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 1999
262 A.D.2d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of M.T.M. Beverages v. Pepsi Cola

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of M.T.M. BEVERAGES CORP., appellant, v. PEPSI COLA BOTTLING…

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

Date published: Jun 7, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
289 N.Y.S.2d 660

Citing Cases

Oparaji v. Boulevard Auto Wrecking

The court below denied said motion, and the instant appeal by plaintiff ensued. The decision as to whether to…

IBK ENTERS., INC. v. ONE KEY, LLC

The court, upon application of any party, may direct the arbitrator to proceed promptly with the hearing and…