You are here: / / ARBITRATION HEARING HELD ON A SUNDAY VIOLATED THE JUDICIARY LAW, AWARD...

ARBITRATION HEARING HELD ON A SUNDAY VIOLATED THE JUDICIARY LAW, AWARD VACATED.

The Second Department determined an arbitration award had to be vacated because the proceedings were held on a Sunday in violation of the Judiciary Law:

Since the arbitration hearing was conducted on a Sunday in violation of Judiciary Law § 5, which “expresses the public policy of the State, and cannot be waived,” the arbitration award is illegal and void … . Accordingly, the award is vacated and the proceeding is dismissed. Matter of Leifer v Gross, 2016 NY Slip Op 04715, 2nd Dept 6-15-16

ARBITRATION (ARBITRATION HEARING HELD ON A SUNDAY VIOLATED THE JUDICIARY LAW, AWARD VACATED)/JUDICIARY LAW (ARBITRATION HEARING HELD ON A SUNDAY VIOLATED THE JUDICIARY LAW, AWARD VACATED)/SUNDAYS (ARBITRATION HEARING HELD ON A SUNDAY VIOLATED THE JUDICIARY LAW, AWARD VACATED)

You might also like
BASED UPON THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT THE IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE STATUTORY-RAPE COMPLAINANT TO DETERMINE THE RELEVANCE OF HER PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY (A MATERIAL STAGE OF THIS PROCEEDING); DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT FOR WHICH NO 710.30 NOTICE WAS PROVIDED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; THE MOLINEUX EVIDENCE OF INTENT, MOTIVE, OR LACK OF MISTAKE WAS NOT RELEVANT TO STATUTORY RAPE (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS A DISBARRED ATTORNEY, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DENTIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATING TO THE COURT THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS FRIVOLOUS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE OFFICERS’ DECIDING NOT TO ARREST PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SON AFTER AN ALTERCATION BETWEEN HER AND HER SON WAS AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; THEREFORE THE CITY WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ATTACK BY HER SON RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).
​ PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A PISTOL PERMIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON A 23-YEAR-OLD ARREST THAT DID NOT RESULT IN PROSECUTION; PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SOLE SHAREHOLDER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACTION AGAINST HIM PREMISED UPON PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARRANTY PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE VIOLATED AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS STRIPPED OF ASSETS SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS (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

SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION IS PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND MUST BE... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FIDUCIARY TOLLING RULE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS;...