You are here: / / No Justification for Vacation of Arbitration Award—Strict Standard...
,

No Justification for Vacation of Arbitration Award—Strict Standard Applies

The Second Department determined Supreme Court erred in vacating an arbitration award in a case involving an uninsured motorist endorsement. Petitioner had won a $25,000 (default) civil judgment against the driver, but in the arbitration under the uninsured motorist endorsement, the arbitrator awarded $10,000:

The Supreme Court erred in vacating the arbitration award. “[J]udicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited” … . ” An arbitration award must be upheld when the arbitrator “offer[s] even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached”‘” … . In addition, an “arbitrator’s award should not be vacated for errors of law and fact committed by the arbitrator and the courts should not assume the role of overseers to mold the award to conform to their sense of justice” … . “An arbitrator is not bound by principles of substantive law or rules of evidence, and may do justice and apply his or her own sense of law and equity to the facts as he or she finds them to be” … . Insofar as is relevant to the instant proceeding, pursuant to CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii), a court may only vacate an arbitration award if the rights of the party moving to vacate the award were prejudiced by the arbitrator “exceed[ing] his [or her] power or so imperfectly execut[ing] it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” “Such an excess of power occurs only where the arbitrator’s award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” … .

Here, the terms of the SUM endorsement clearly provide that any sum [the insurer] was obligated to pay the petitioner, which the petitioner was legally entitled to recover, was subject to arbitration, and that the parties agreed to be bound by the arbitrator’s award.  Matter of Aftor v Geico Ins Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 07032, 2nd Dept 10-30-13

 

You might also like
THE PROPERTY OWNER, MCWHITE, HAD BEEN DISMISSED FROM THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE ACTION AND HER INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN EXTINGUISHED BY THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WHICH FALSELY NAMED HER AS A DEFENDANT; THE REFEREE’S DEED-HOLDER DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR REFORECLOSURE AGAINST MCWHITE AND MCWHITE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HER QUIET TITLE CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT COMPLETE THE TREATMENT REQUIRED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT; THE GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE WHICH USUALLY REQUIRES THAT THE PLEA BE VACATED; HERE SUPREME COURT FELT DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED BY THE TREATMENT PROGRAM AND PROPERLY EXERCISED DISCRETION IN FASHIONING A SENTENCE MUCH LESS THAN THAT REQUIRED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT, LEAVING THE GUILTY PLEA IN PLACE (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2015 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION WHICH PROHIBITED INSTRUCTING A JURY THAT IT COULD FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY OF BOTH DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND INTENTIONAL (TRANSFERRED INTENT) MURDER OF A SINGLE VICTIM SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).
Application for Area Variances Properly Denied—Court’s Review Criteria Explained—General City Law and Town Law Criteria for Area Variance Explained
DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE.
RECOVERY OF A $280,000 SETTLEMENT PURPORTEDLY PAID TO DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF IS BARRED BY THE STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PROTECTION ACT WHICH REQUIRES COURT APPROVAL PRIOR TO PAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE 90 DAY NOTICE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Property Owners, Absent a Regulation, Do Not Have a Duty to Make Sure Vegetation Does Not Obstruct Drivers’ View/Here the Cited Code Violations Were Not Intended to Impose that Duty

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

No Fiduciary Duty Re: Purchase of One Shareholder’s Stock by Another in a... Failure to Serve Superintendent of Schools in Accordance with RPTL Required...