You are here: / / AFTER MAKING A FINAL AWARD, THE RABBINICAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY...

AFTER MAKING A FINAL AWARD, THE RABBINICAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY MAKING A SECOND AWARD BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE.

The Second Department determined the arbitration award made by the rabbinical court was properly vacated. After making a final award, the rabbinical court, based on new information, made a second award:

“An arbitration award may not be vacated unless it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator's power” … . After an arbitrator renders an award, he or she is generally without power to render a new award or to modify the original award … . Here, because the arbitration award dated May 5, 2011, was final and definite within the meaning of CPLR 7511 … , the rabbinical court exceeded its authority in modifying the original award by rendering the new arbitration award dated July 22, 2013… . Matter of Pinkesz v Wertzberger, 2016 NY Slip Op 04060, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

ARBITRATION (AFTER MAKING A FINAL AWARD, THE RABBINICAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY MAKING A SECOND AWARD BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE)/RABBINICAL COURT (AFTER MAKING A FINAL AWARD, THE RABBINICAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY MAKING A SECOND AWARD BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE)

You might also like
Where Plaintiff Does Not Know Which of Two Defendants Distributed the Product Which Caused the Injury, the Doctrine of Alternative Liability Applies—Doctrine Explained
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MERE DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED; THE REFEREE RELIED ON HEARSAY AND FAILED TO CONDUCT A HEARING ON NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT).
IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 NOTICE MUST BE SENT TO THE BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE; HERE OTHER NOTICES WERE INCLUDED IN THE ENVELOPE ALONG WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFECT NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT
DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE BANK’S LETTER DE-ACCELERATING THE DEBT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION PAPERS WERE MAILED TO DEFENDANT 20, NOT 21, DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, THEREFORE THE CROSS MOTION, SERVED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE, WAS TIMELY (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

RELEASE APPLICABLE TO INSTITUTION DID NOT APPLY TO A PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN... CORRESPONDENCE ESTABLISHED AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.