Ingham v. Thompson
Opinion of the Court
CPLR 7511 provides the exclusive grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award, and none of those grounds have been presented here (see Frankel v Sardis, 76 AD3d 136, 139 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of New York State Nurses Assn. [Nyack Hosp.], 258 AD2d 303 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 810 [1999]). Hence, the Supreme Court should have granted plaintiffs motion to confirm the arbitration award, and denied respondents’ cross motion to vacate it.
Respondents’ arguments that plaintiff should have been disqualified from maintaining the arbitration proceeding alleging, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent mismanagement, and waste of assets, because she initially asserted individual claims alongside the derivative claims on behalf of the limited partnership, and settled with one of the defendants on behalf of herself and the limited partnership, are unavailing. Arbitrators are not bound by the principles of substantive law
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.