You are here: / / THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS INDEFINITE AND NONFINAL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN...
,

THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS INDEFINITE AND NONFINAL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitration award should not have been confirmed because it was indefinite and nonfinal:

Although judicial review of arbitration awards is limited …, an award will be vacated when the arbitrator making the award “so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made” (CPLR 7511[b][1][iii] … ). An arbitration award will be vacated as indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR 7511 if it does not “dispose of a particular issue raised by the parties” … , or “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” … .

Here, the appellant established that the arbitration award was indefinite and nonfinal inasmuch as it did not clearly define how the accounts receivable that were incurred prior to the date of the award were to be distributed. Moreover, the provision at issue created a new controversy between the parties with respect to the distribution of those funds. Accordingly, that portion of the award should have been vacated and the matter remitted … . Matter of Rosenberg v Schwartz, 2019 NY Slip Op 07587, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

You might also like
NEITHER A CERTIFICATION ORDER NOR A STIPULATION EXTENDING THE DATE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A 90-DAY NOTICE; THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION WAS INVALID; THE MOTION TO RESTORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Mother’s Petition to Relocate Should Not Have Been Denied—Analytical Criteria Described
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF MORE TIME TO FILE PAPERS OPPOSING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, THE LACK OF PREJUDICE AND MERITORIOUS DEFENSES (SECOND DEPT).
THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 90-DAY NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE DID NOT VIOLATE THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAITED UNTIL AFTER THE PROSECUTOR MADE SEVERAL ARGUABLY IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION BEFORE OBJECTING “TO ALL OF THIS;” THE OBJECTION WAS DEEMED UNTIMELY, VAGUE, AMBIGUOUS, GENERAL AND NONSPECIFIC; THEREFORE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS WERE NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE POLICE HAD ENOUGH CAUSE FOR A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY BUT DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED, FRISKED AND BROUGHT TO THE GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED THE TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE AND THE EXISTENCE OF THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF PRIVITY BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT ARCHITECT; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE THE FACTS THAT THE FORECLOSURE ACTION HAD BEEN DISMISSED AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (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

THE INSURED, WHO WAS SEEKING UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS, DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY... TRANSCRIPT OF FAMILY COURT ACT 1028 HEARING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED AS A REPLACEMENT...