Matter of Yates Lansing, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Grobman v. Chernoff

    15 N.Y.3d 525 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 13 times

    I. Courts are powerless to grant preaward interest from an arbitration award when the arbitrator was empowered to award interest but did not do so. ( Matter of Spindler [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 283 AD2d 762; Matter of Weinrott [Carp], 32 NY2d 190; Matter of Meisels v Uhr, 79 NY2d 526; Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299; Maross Constr. v Central N.Y. Regional Transp. Auth., 66 NY2d 341; Matter of West Side Lofts [Sentry Contr.], 300 AD2d 130; Matter of Excelsior 57th Corp. [Kern], 283 AD2d 209; Matter of Yates Lansing, Inc. [Town of Niskayuna], 202 AD2d 916; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Cordes, 242 AD2d 635; Matter of Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v Rosen, 233 AD2d 499.)

  2. Matter of Yates Lansing, Inc.

    83 N.Y.2d 758 (N.Y. 1994)

    Decided June 16, 1994 Appeal from (3d Dept: 202 A.D.2d 916) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR DENIED

  3. Cinelli Builders v. Ferris

    78 A.D.3d 881 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 5 times

    Therefore, the construction was for a "new home," the plaintiff was not required to possess a home improvement contractor's license, and there was a valid agreement to arbitrate ( see Marciano Constr. Corp. v Stout, 12 Misc 3d 1152[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50874[U]; cf. J.M. Bldrs. Assoc. Inc. v Lindner, 67 AD3d 738, 740-741; Blake Elec. Contr. Co. v Paschall, 222 AD2d 264, 265-266). In directing the plaintiff to pay one half of the costs of stenographer transcripts, the arbitrator exceeded his powers, and the Supreme Court correctly modified the arbitration award to the extent of deleting that provision ( see Matter of MKC Dev. Corp. v Weiss, 203 AD2d 573; Matter of Yates Lansing, Inc. [Town of Niskayuna], 202 AD2d 916). The parties' remaining contentions have been rendered academic or are without merit.

  4. West Side v. Sentry Contr

    300 A.D.2d 130 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 6 times

    Arbitrator discretion in procedural matters should not be restricted absent a compelling reason for departing from the strong policy against judicial interference in arbitration proceedings (see Avon Prods. v. Solow, 150 A.D.2d 236, 239-240; Matter of Herskovitz v. Kaye Assocs., 170 A.D.2d 272). Similarly, given a broad arbitration clause (compare Matter of Excelsior 57thCorp. [Kern], 283 A.D.2d 209) and the absence of a contractual provision specifically prohibiting pre-award interest (compare Matter of Yates Lansing Inc. [Town of Niskayuna], 202 A.D.2d 916,lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 758), the award of pre-award interest cannot be successfully challenged as beyond the arbitrator's power simply because the parties' contract contains no provision therefor and petitioner made no such demand in the arbitration (cf. Matter of Silverman [Benmore Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 308). As there is no dispute that petitioner was awarded $16,250 for arbitration costs, the second judgment should be deemed merely a resettlement of the first, and no reason appears why such resettlement was improper or inappropriate based on this record.