Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007

Mounier v. American Transit Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 9, 2007

36 A.D.3d 617; 827 N.Y.S.2d 868

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Denaro v. Cruz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Denaro v. Cruz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Raitport v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Matter of Papa v. DePaola (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Piller v. Eisner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Barrella v. State of New York Off. of Mental Health (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Delora v. Edge Community Apts. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Verille v. Jeanette (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Collazo v. Suffolk County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Perilli v. New York State Department of Correctional Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Berg v. Berg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Balis v. Chubb Group of Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Arab v. ATC Jewelers, Inc. (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 a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated March 11, 2005, which denied the petition and confirmed the arbitration award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The arbitration award under review was not arbitrary, capricious, or irrational (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]; Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 223 [1996]; Matter of Sari M. Friedman, P.C. v Gleeson, 300 AD2d 404 [2002]). Moreover, the appellant waived any objection to the alleged misconduct or partiality of the arbitrator on the basis of purported ex parte communications with the respondent’s counsel (see Matter of Reilly v Progressive Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 776, 777 [2004]; Matter of Crystal City Police Benevolent Assn. [City of Corning], 91 AD2d 843 [1982]). In any event, the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that any impropriety on the part of the arbitrator prejudiced his rights or the integrity of the arbitra*618tion process (see Matter of Hausknecht v Comprehensive Med. Care of N.Y., P.C., 24 AD3d 778, 780 [2005], citing Matter of James A. Smith Contr. v Stahl, 162 AD2d 688 [1990]; Matter of Montague Pipeline Tech. Corp. v Grace-Lansing & Grace Indus., 238 AD2d 510 [1997]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s petition and confirmed the arbitration award (see CPLR 7511 [e]). Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.

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