Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: STOLTHAVEN PERTH AMBOY, INC., Petitioner-Respondent-Appellant, v. JLM MARKETING, INC., Respondent-Appellant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered June 13, 2007, which granted the petition to confirm an arbitration award, denied the cross motion to vacate the award, and awarded petitioner the principal sum of $825,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
All three arbitrators affirmed the award in the same form, although the signatures of the majority were not notarized. That necessity was eliminated by the Legislature in 1981 (see 13 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac. ¶ 7507.02). Even were we to find a defect in the affirmations of the majority, we would not vacate the award (see Matter of MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v. Anastasio, 35 A.D.3d 474, 824 N.Y.S.2d 724 [2006] ).
The arbitration award was not marked by manifest disregard of the law, there being no showing that the arbitrators had ignored or refused to apply a governing legal principle that was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case (see Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 N.Y.3d 471, 481, 813 N.Y.S.2d 691, 846 N.E.2d 1201 [2006], cert. dismissed 548 U.S. 940, 127 S.Ct. 342, 165 L.Ed.2d 1012 [2006] ). Respondent failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that it had been deprived of a fundamentally fair hearing (see Kaminsky v. Segura, 26 A.D.3d 188, 810 N.Y.S.2d 25 [2006] ).
We decline to award contractual legal fees, in light of petitioner's failure, inter alia, to offer evidence of actual expenses directly resulting from the arbitration. We have considered the parties' other arguments for affirmative relief and find them without merit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 03, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)