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: Robbyn ROTHMAN, et al., respondents, v. RE/MAX OF NEW YORK, INC., appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal, as limited by the appellant's brief, is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated November 29, 1999, as denied the motion to confirm the arbitration award and directed a new arbitration.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the arbitration award is confirmed.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the petitioners were sufficiently aware of prior contacts between the arbitrator and Mr. Bailey, the appellant's outside general counsel, to place them on notice of the arbitrator's prior relationship with Bailey. By proceeding with the arbitration without challenging and/or inquiring further of the arbitrator, notwithstanding Bailey's presence at and participation in the arbitration, the petitioners effectively waived any objections they had in connection with the relationship between Bailey and the arbitrator (see, Matter of Siegel, 40 N.Y.2d 687, 389 N.Y.S.2d 800, 358 N.E.2d 484; Matter of J.P. Stevens [Rytex Corp.], 34 N.Y.2d 123, 356 N.Y.S.2d 278, 312 N.E.2d 466; Matter of Arner v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 233 A.D.2d 321, 649 N.Y.S.2d 185; Matter of Canajoharie Cent. School Dist. [Canajoharie United School Employees], 108 A.D.2d 1087, 485 N.Y.S.2d 866).
Accordingly, the petitioners failed to meet the heavy burden necessary to overturn an arbitration award, and the appellant's motion to confirm the award should have been granted (see generally, North Syracuse Cent. School Dist. v. North Syracuse Educ. Assn., 45 N.Y.2d 195, 408 N.Y.S.2d 64, 379 N.E.2d 1193; Artists & Craftsmen Bldrs. v. Schapiro, 232 A.D.2d 265, 648 N.Y.S.2d 550; Matter of Mohiuddin v. Khan, 197 A.D.2d 578, 602 N.Y.S.2d 664).
The petitioners' remaining contention is without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: July 24, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)