Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Montague Pipeline Technologies Corp. v. Grace-Lansing & Grace Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 21, 1997

238 A.D.2d 510; 656 N.Y.S.2d 656; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4082

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Paluch v. Kohn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y., Inc. v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Mounier v. American Transit Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Westchester Ice Hockey Officials Ass'n v. Section One, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re the Arbitration between Radin & Kleinman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

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 a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, inter alia, to disqualify an arbitrator appointed by Grace-Lansing & Grace Industries, Inc., the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated September 28, 1995, which, inter alia, denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petitioner’s application, inter alia, to disqualify the arbitrator appointed by the respondents. Discussions between an arbitrator and a party concerning fees after the commencement of the arbitration proceeding may constitute misconduct so as to render disqualification an appropriate remedy or vitiate any award (see, Matter of Goldfinger v Lisker, 68 NY2d 225; Matter of Catalyst Waste-to-Energy Corp. [City of Long Beach], 164 AD2d 817; Matter of Elia Bldg. Co. [County of Niagara], 8 AD2d 684; Matter of Franks [Penn-Uranium Corp.], 4 AD2d 39, 40). There is, however, no per se rule that such communications constitute misconduct impairing the integrity of the arbitration process (see, Matter of Goldfinger v Lisker, supra, at 232). Rather, the particular facts and circumstances of each case must be examined to reach an appropriate determination. Upon our review of the facts and circumstances here, we conclude that the petitioner failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to support a finding of misconduct, or to raise questions of possible bias or partiality (cf., Matter of Reale [Healy N. Y. Corp.], 54 AD2d 1039, 1040).

We have considered the petititioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.