From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Modafferi v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 6, 2012
93 A.D.3d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-03-6

In the Matter of Vincent MODAFFERI, etc., respondent, v. MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY, appellant.

Martin B. Schnabel, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Robert K. Drinan and Mariel A. Tanne of counsel; Matthew Finkel on the brief), for appellant. Colleran, O'Hara & Mills LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Edward J. Groarke and Michael D. Bosso of counsel), for respondent.


Martin B. Schnabel, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Robert K. Drinan and Mariel A. Tanne of counsel; Matthew Finkel on the brief), for appellant. Colleran, O'Hara & Mills LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Edward J. Groarke and Michael D. Bosso of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award dated September 21, 2010, Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Velasquez, J.), dated January 5, 2011, which granted the petition to confirm the award and denied its cross motion, inter alia, to vacate the award.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“ ‘An arbitration award can be vacated by a court pursuant to CPLR 7511(b) [ (1)(iii) ] on only three narrow grounds: if it is clearly violative of a strong public policy, if it is totally or completely irrational, or if it manifestly exceeds a specific, enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power’ ” ( Matter of Miro Leisure Corp. v. Prudence Orla, Inc., 83 A.D.3d 945, 946, 922 N.Y.S.2d 424, quoting *865 Matter of Erin Constr. & Dev. Co., Inc. v. Meltzer, 58 A.D.3d 729, 729, 873 N.Y.S.2d 315; see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 214, 223, 652 N.Y.S.2d 584, 674 N.E.2d 1349). Contrary to the appellant's contention, it failed to demonstrate the existence of any of the statutory grounds for vacating the arbitrator's award ( see Matter of Miro Leisure Corp. v. Prudence Orla, Inc., 83 A.D.3d at 946, 922 N.Y.S.2d 424; Matter of Green v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 22 A.D.3d 755, 756, 802 N.Y.S.2d 379).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

RIVERA, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, LEVENTHAL and COHEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Modafferi v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 6, 2012
93 A.D.3d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Modafferi v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Vincent MODAFFERI, etc., respondent, v. MANHATTAN AND…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 6, 2012

Citations

93 A.D.3d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1677
939 N.Y.S.2d 864