You are here: / / Criteria for Vacation of an Arbitration Award Explained (Not Met Here)

Criteria for Vacation of an Arbitration Award Explained (Not Met Here)

The Second Department explained the criteria for vacation of an arbitration award:

A party seeking to overturn an arbitration award on one or more grounds stated in CPLR 7511(b)(1) bears a “heavy burden” … , and must establish a ground for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence … . An arbitration award must be vacated if a party’s rights were impaired by an arbitrator who “exceeded his [or her] power or so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made” (CPLR 7511[b][1][iii]). An arbitrator exceeds his or her power where the “award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” … . An award will be vacated as indefinite only if it leaves the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations, if it does not resolve the controversy submitted, or if it creates a new controversy … . Matter of Quality Bldg Constr LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01643, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

You might also like
Plaintiffs’ Failure to Attend Depositions Warranted Dismissal of Complaint
Defense Request to Review Psychiatric Records of Prosecution Witness Properly Denied; Evidence of Shooting of Prosecution Witness Properly Admitted to Show Defendant’s Consciousness of Guilt
DEFENDANT DRIVER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE.
LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH STANDING; PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 INSUFFICIENT; OUT OF STATE AFFIDAVIT LACKED A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY; NEITHER PLAINTIFF NOR DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
AN ACTION AGAINST A NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY MUST ALLEGE THE FAILURE TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION OR ITS MEMBERS, NOT, AS HERE, THE FAILURE TO ACT IN A MEMBER’S PERSONAL BEST INTEREST (SECOND DEPT).
THE ALLEGATION THE CAR IN FRONT MADE A SUDDEN STOP DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN A REAR-END COLLISION (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION IN THIS MED MAL CASE DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE MALPRACTICE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLANT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR OWNER, DID NOT SUPERVISE AND CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS CONSTRUCTION-DEBRIS-SLIP-AND-FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

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

Four-Month Statute of Limitations for Challenging Department of Environmental... Motion for Discontinuance Without Prejudice Should Not Have Been Granted Because...