You are here: / / Error to Exclude Petitioner from Arbitration Proceeding
,

Error to Exclude Petitioner from Arbitration Proceeding

Although the First Department determined the error was harmless, the court noted that petitioner should not have been excluded from an arbitration proceedings concerning the termination of her employment:

The arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority by excluding petitioner from certain portions of the arbitration proceedings, over her objection, in violation of Rule 23 of the American Arbitration Association’s Commercial Arbitration Rules  (see CPLR 7511[b][iii]…).

The exclusion of petitioner from approximately 5% of the proceedings was, however, harmless error, since the result would have been the same had she been present. Petitioner’s case rested on her argument that respondents’ reasons for terminating her were merely a pretext to avoid paying her what she believed would be very high commissions. Since the evidence presented during petitioner’s absences from the proceedings had no bearing on that issue, there is no basis for vacating the arbitrator’s finding that petitioner was fired for her repeated, and severe, violations of the conflict of interest provisions of her contract, as well as for her threats against her employer… . Caruso v Viridian Network, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05780, 1st Dept 9-10-13

 

You might also like
DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT BASED UPON THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF TWO JURORS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
RIGHT TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS NOT A RIGHT RESERVED TO A DEFENDANT, IT IS A STRATEGIC DECISION TO BE MADE BY COUNSEL.
AFTER BEING TOLD THE PREMISES WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO DETERMINE WHERE DEFENDANT RESIDED BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL-AND-MAIL SERVICE; THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
THE REQUEST TO POLL THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISCHARGED THE JURY FOREMAN FOR ARGUING WITH ONE OR MORE JURORS WITHOUT INTERVIEWING ALL INVOLVED (FIRST DEPT).
INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, UNDER THE CONTRACT, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT WAS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT.
A FALL OF 2O TO 25 FEET FROM A RAMP USED TO TRANSPORT MATERIALS IS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT.)
Attorney’s Defamation Suit Against Client Based Upon Letters Sent to the Attorney by the Client Dismissed
Deed Was Not a “Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure;” Deed Therefore Did Not Transfer Title; Mortgagor’s Interest Can Be Extinguished Only by Foreclosure

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Student Who Had Been Expelled Could Bring Plenary Complaint Against School,... Proximate Cause Can Not Be Based Upon Speculation; Many Possible Causes