Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Steiner
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hausknecht v. Comprehensive Medical Care of New York, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Matter of Rokeach v. Salamon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v. Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Transport Workers Union of Greater N.Y., Local 100, AFL-CIO v. New York City Tr. Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Pinkesz v. Wertzberger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Palermo v. Winnicki (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Palermo v. Winnicki (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Matter of Board of Education of Amityville Union Free School District v. Amityville Teacher's Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- In re Arbitration between Sobel & Charles Schwab & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an arbitration proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, the petitioner appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated June 29, 1995, which granted the respondent’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered July 26, 1995, which confirmed the arbitration award and is in favor of the respondent and against the petitioner in the principal sum of $10,000.
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the proceeding (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
The petitioner contends that the arbitration award should be vacated because the arbitrator failed to state his reasons for making the award and therefore "so imperfectly executed [his power] that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made” (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]). We disagree. For purposes of CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii), an arbitration award is deficient and subject to vacatur 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 (see, Matter of Meisels v Uhr, 79 NY2d 526, 536). The petitioner failed to establish any of these grounds for vacatur. The award resolved the controversy and the arbitrator rejected the defense asserted by the petitioner at the arbitration hearing. In addition, an arbitrator is not required to give any reasons for his decision. Thus, an award cannot be attacked on the ground that the arbitrator refused to consider or failed to appreciate particular arguments or evidence (see, Matter of Guetta [Raxon Fabrics Corp.], 123 AD2d 40, 45). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.