From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rothman v. RE/MAX of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 24, 2000
274 A.D.2d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued April 6, 2000

July 24, 2000.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal, as limited by the appellant's brief, is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated November 29, 1999, as denied the motion to confirm the arbitration award and directed a new arbitration.

Robert S. Weininger, Rye, N.Y., for appellant.

Garguilo Orzechowski, LLP, St. James, N.Y. (Jerry Garguilo of counsel), for respondents.

Before: DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the arbitration award is confirmed.

Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the petitioners were sufficiently aware of prior contacts between the arbitrator and Mr. Bailey, the appellant's outside general counsel, to place them on notice of the arbitrator's prior relationship with Bailey. By proceeding with the arbitration without challenging and/or inquiring further of the arbitrator, notwithstanding Bailey's presence at and participation in the arbitration, the petitioners effectively waived any objections they had in connection with the relationship between Bailey and the arbitrator (see, Matter of Siegel, 40 N.Y.2d 687; Matter of [Rytex Corp.] J.P. Stevens, 34 N.Y.2d 123; Matter of Arner v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 233 A.D.2d 321; Matter of [Canajoharie United School Employees] Canajoharie Cent. School Dist., 108 A.D.2d 1087). Accordingly, the petitioners failed to meet the heavy burden necessary to overturn an arbitration award, and the appellant's motion to confirm the award should have been granted (see generally, North Syracuse Cent. School Dist. v. North Syracuse Educ. Assn., 45 N.Y.2d 195; Artists Craftsmen Bldrs. v. Shapiro, 232 A.D.2d 265; Matter of Mohiuddin v. Khan, 197 A.D.2d 578).

The petitioners' remaining contention is without merit.


Summaries of

Rothman v. RE/MAX of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 24, 2000
274 A.D.2d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Rothman v. RE/MAX of New York, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ROBBYN ROTHMAN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. RE/MAX OF NEW…

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

Date published: Jul 24, 2000

Citations

274 A.D.2d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
711 N.Y.S.2d 477

Citing Cases

TRAVELERS PROP. CAS. CO. OF AMERICA v. SWEN

Consistent with public policy in favor of arbitration, the grounds specified in CPLR 7511 for vacating an…

Sheehan v. Suffolk Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

Petitioners were not a party to either the collective bargaining agreement or the arbitration and cannot cite…