You are here: / / Analytical Criteria for Confirmation of an Arbitration Award Described

Analytical Criteria for Confirmation of an Arbitration Award Described

The Second Department explained the analytical criteria for confirmation of an arbitration award.  The court noted that an arbitrator does not have the power to award punitive damages:

“The court shall confirm an award upon application of a party made within one year after its delivery to him [or her], unless the award is vacated or modified upon a ground specified in section 7511” (CPLR 7510). “An arbitration award is indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR 7511 and subject to vacatur 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'” … . “An award is final and definite if the computation of the award is so clear and specific that the determination of the amounts owing is merely an accounting calculation” … . Matter of Olidort v Pewzner, 2015 NY Slip Op 01278, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

You might also like
Failure to Eliminate Comparative Negligence Precluded Summary Judgment to Plaintiff In Car-Accident Action
PLAINTIFF WAS A CO-PILOT OF A HELICOPTER USED TO PROVIDE AN AERIAL PLATFORM FOR WORK ON POWER LINES; THE HELICOPTER STRUCK A POWER LINE AND PLAINTIFF JUMPED FROM THE HELICOPTER FROM A HEIGHT OF 75 FEET; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) STRICT LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT (FAA); THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; RATHER THE FEDERAL STANDARD OF CARE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
Defendant Not Entitled to Dismissal of Complaint On Ground that Condition of the Property Was Open and Obvious
PLAINTIFF, IN THE FACE OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS TO THE CONTRARY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AT TRIAL THAT A PARTNERSHIP, AS OPPOSED TO AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT’s MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ONCE THE PARTIES ENTERED A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE, SUPREME COURT WAS DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO VACATE THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DISMISSAL/SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN OPPOSITION AND ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN IGNORED.
CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply to a Horse Barn Used for Commercial Purposes Despite Presence of an Apartment in the Barn

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

Appendix Incomplete—Appeal Dismissed Four-Year Statute of Limitations Under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Started to...