From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seneca Ins. Co. v. Ruday Realty Corp.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STAT E OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Aug 9, 2011
No. 2010-02707 (N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 9, 2011)

Opinion

2010-02707 Index No. 499/04

08-09-2011

Seneca Insurance Company, respondent, v. Ruday Realty Corp., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

Cary Scott Goldinger, Garden City, N.Y., for appellants. Shay & Maguire, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Kenneth R. Maguire of counsel), for respondent.


, J.P.

ANITA R. FLORIO

ARIEL E. BELEN

ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

Cary Scott Goldinger, Garden City, N.Y., for appellants.

Shay & Maguire, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Kenneth R. Maguire of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendants Ruday Realty Corp. and Crosstown Management Corp., from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), dated January 26, 2010, which granted the motion of the plaintiff, Seneca Insurance Company, pursuant to CPLR 7510, to confirm a mediation award dated July 27, 2009, made against the plaintiff and in their favor in the principal sum of only $385,000 on their cross claim for legal fees and expenses, denied their cross motion pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate and/or to increase the mediation award to the total sum of $1,204,089.10, and directed entry of a money judgment in their favor on the mediation award in the principal sum of only $385,000.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the contentions of the defendants Ruday Realty Corp. and Crosstown Management Corp. (hereinafter together the appellants), vacatur and/or an increase of the subject mediation award is not warranted since the award did not violate a strong public policy, was not irrational, and did not manifestly exceed a specific, enumerated limitation on the mediator's power (see Matter of Town of Callicoon [Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. Town of Callicoon Unit], 70 NY2d 907, 909; see also Matter of Local 456, Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters v City of Yonkers, 75 AD3d 555; Matter of Scher Law Firm, LLP v 87-10 51st Ave. Owners Corp., 52 AD3d 611; Matter of Balis v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 50 AD3d 682).

The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.

ANGIOLILLO, J.P., FLORIO, BELEN and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court


Summaries of

Seneca Ins. Co. v. Ruday Realty Corp.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STAT E OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Aug 9, 2011
No. 2010-02707 (N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 9, 2011)
Case details for

Seneca Ins. Co. v. Ruday Realty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Seneca Insurance Company, respondent, v. Ruday Realty Corp., et al.…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STAT E OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Date published: Aug 9, 2011

Citations

No. 2010-02707 (N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 9, 2011)